Lessons in pudding preference: Equal marriage rights in Indiana

Christina Clark
Christina Clark

Staff Writer

Chocolate pudding, pistachio pudding, vanilla pudding, banana pudding…I like all types of pudding. I’m no Bill Cosby, but pudding was actually a part of my childhood (my mother must have listened, because it was often dessert).

The one type of pudding I never liked? Tapioca. Can’t stand it. The texture, the taste…but that doesn’t make it something I need to illegalize, does it? No, it just means I pass it up in the aisle when I suddenly get a hankering for my simple, childhood dessert. This means something, I promise.

It probably won’t surprise you by now that I’m pro-gay marriage. I’m pro-equal rights for humans, really. Gay, straight, bi-, trans-, whatever color of the rainbow you are: you have rights. The only time those rights should be withheld is if you, oh, I don’t know, go on a murder rampage or start thinking that rape or bestiality is acceptable. Then, I’ve gotta say, you’ve kind of cashed in your “rights” card.

But otherwise, I’m all for two consenting adults being able to do what they please together (again, not go on a murder or rape spree, please and thank you. That won’t make you any friends.)

Marriage is often an important, and sacred, institution to two people who are a) in love, b) want to spend their lives together, and c) have been adult enough to discuss the concept in real-terms. (There are also relationship statuses and commitment ideals that involve plurality, but that is a whole other subject that I could address at a different time. Let’s take one step at a time, my fellow Titans and Hoosiers.)

This past week in Indiana, Speaker of the House Brian Bosma made a motion to move HJR-3 (House joint resolution-3) from a committee where it was becoming anemic to a committee that would most like move the bill forward. The resolution would build on the fact that same-sex marriage is not recognized in Indiana, and would make that a more permanent fixture by adding it to the state’s constitution. This move also protects it from interpretation cases, as it clarifies exactly what the state means: marriage between a man and a woman will be recognized and nothing else.

This comes on the heels on the news that a growing number of states have started recognizing and allowing gay marriage in their states.

The move by Bosma is an interesting one, as it disrupts the natural process of passing (or throwing out) a bill.

Senate Democratic Minority Leader Tim Lanane, D-Anderson, commented to the IndyStar, “Sometimes the legislative process does not garner the expected result, but that does not mean one gets to change the rules in the middle of the game.”

The comment is countered in the article by the leader of a pro-amendment group called the “American Family Association of Indiana.”

Micah Clark, the executive director of the association, said “Hopefully this will move the marriage amendment through the process so that Hoosiers can finally have their say concerning if both men and women are important in a marriage.”

But Clark, isn’t that exactly the point? Both men and women absolutely are important in marriage. Men who like men, men who like women, women who like men, women who like women…they’re all important. They all deserve a fair chance at happiness (and potential tax breaks).

If separation of church and state are truly to be upheld, then what could possibly be standing in the way of two wonderful, consenting and will people, to enter into wedded bliss? It makes you “uncomfortable” or “it’s gross”?

Well, tapioca pudding makes me uncomfortable and I think it’s gross, but lots of people love tapioca pudding. Does it make it tapioca pudding inherently wrong? Absolutely not. It just means that I was not born to eat tapioca pudding. Am I missing out? Some might think so, but I also like other types of pudding, so I think I’m pretty well-rounded in the pudding world.

My point is, if it doesn’t affect your life in any personal way, then why put so many other people’s happiness (and let’s face it, their basic rights) on the line? Marriage between two consenting adults, of whatever mix and match of sexuality and gender, should be recognized in Indiana.

2 comments on “Lessons in pudding preference: Equal marriage rights in Indiana”

  1. The article is based on a faulty premise, namely that the standard for life is ‘personal happiness.’ In other words, the standard is…there is no standard. Satisfy your cravings, no matter what they are. If it feels good, do it! How sad

Leave a Reply