Reach Out

Every one needs a hand to hold on to
Every one needs a hand to hold on to
Don't need to be no strong hand
Don't need to be no rich hand
Every one just needs a hand to hold on to

                                -- John Mellencamp
                                 or
                                    JCM
                                 or, maybe just
                                   J C

___________________________________

A couple nights ago the New Albany Common Council met in what seemed to be one of its particularly thin proceedings. No ordinances were under consideration. The administration had asked for nothing. Instead we were asked to weigh in on something The News and Tribune likes to refer to as, (and why not paraphrase?) "a meaningless, empty, expression". The empty rhetoric this time was directed at those in the state legislature who would commandeer the state constitution for political purposes (HJR-6); as bait, or shiny objects for those who would see danger, and thus political advantage, in the pursuit of  happiness by "others". Others may be refined, or defined, to include q-words, f-words and anything other than me- or we-words.

As I looked out into the gallery that night I was humbled by the hope the "others" had placed in us--their local government. As The Tribune is wont to say, the New Albany Common Council  weighing in on state or national issues is pointless, perhaps grandstanding, but certainly, ineffectual. But for the time the others spoke in our chamber, I, at least, glimpsed just a bit of representative democracy. For that brief time, I think,  people looked to us to hear their message of disaffection, their hope for inclusion in that which the majority takes for granted. They looked to us to speak for them, our friends, our neighbors, our un-acknowledged kin.

Most of the City Council did speak for the hopes of those who appealed to us. I am proud that our  Council took this step before it was simply part of a well-worn path. And those who did not advance the hopes of those in attendance should not be vilified. Acceptance and tolerance are hard-won in our society, and our world; empathy is a blessing not universally bestowed.

Hasn't everyone, at one time or another, felt outside of the mainstream, or felt that he or she won't fit into society's lines? House Joint Resolution -6, seeks to play upon the fears, prejudices, and intolerance of  of those among us who can, through ignorance or convenience, distance themselves from those whom they see as unlike them, and thus unworthy of the fruits of our earthly bounty. HJR-6 would seek, for political advantage, to make the road of life more difficult and lonely for the "others" among us, those not like us.

Councilman Phipps hit the nail on the head the other night when he said, " a hundred years from now we will be judged on what we did during our brief time here." I am proud to have spoken up for tolerance, and commend those others who also spoke up for it. As Mellencamp said, "everyone just needs a hand to hold on to." I'm proud to have extended a hand to hold on to, rather than presenting  a fist of rejection, and I commend the other Council members who also offered the hand of acceptance.

If one questions whether we should withdraw the helping hand of love, acceptance, and tolerance from the "others", I challenge you to find the "others" in this picture.           

HJR-6, Heading South?

 

Thursday the City Council will consider the  resolution printed below.

 

While it is true that resolutions are simply statements, with no force of law or consequences backing them up, it is also true that at times making a statement is preferable to silent acquiescence of the status quo.

 

For those who have followed the debate surrounding the proposed constitutional amendment to which the resolution refers, numerous articles and statements have pointed out that Indiana faces a choice between a retrograde stance and an open-minded acceptance of modern America. Last Saturday's Tribune had an excellent offering from Morton Marcus about the choice we face, I tried to link to it but couldn't navigate the terrain.

 

A carefully chosen phrase is in the resolution, "states of the Union".  We seldom hear of the states of the Union these days, and it harkens to a time reminiscent of the Civil War. Many of the policies pursued recently in Indiana suggest that many of our leaders would be more comfortable in any of the Confederate redoubts south of the Mason Dixon line.  A friend has begun to refer to our state as Indissippi.

 

We need not go down that road.

 

________________________________

 

WHEREAS:  Certain legislators in the State of Indiana have offered for consideration an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Indiana, House Joint Resolution-6, regarding a definition of the State of Marriage within our state, and

 

WHEREAS: This constitutional amendment has been forcefully opposed by a leading educational institution of our state and by some of the most respected and renowned corporate entities within our state, Indiana University, Eli Lilly and Co., and Cummins Engines, among others, and

 

WHEREAS:  One of the primary reasons these institutions have opposed the constitutional amendment, beyond its inherent intolerance, is the effect it would have on commerce, competitiveness,  and the recruitment of open-minded, talented people needed to further the goals and aims of these institutions, and

 

WHEREAS:  The flow of history in the United States is in the direction of greater openness and inclusiveness, more tolerance and acceptance of persons of diverse views, backgrounds, heritages and orientations, and

 

WHEREAS:  Greater acceptance of diversity of all kinds is a Twenty First Century extrapolation of the views put forth by our Eighteenth Century founders, and

 

WHEREAS:  Current Indiana law: 

IC 31-11-1-1

Same sex marriages prohibited

Sec. 1. (a) Only a female may marry a male. Only a male may

marry a female.

(b) A marriage between persons of the same gender is void in

Indiana even if the marriage is lawful in the place where it is

solemnized.

 

 obviates the need for a restrictive constitutional amendment,  as detailed in House Joint Resolution 6.

 

NOW THEREFORE:  The Common Council of the City of New Albany, Indiana, by this resolution, does hereby express its opposition to HJR-6, and

 

FURTHER:  Asks that our Hoosier state, by rejecting HJR-6,  be seen among our sister states of the Union more as a center of tolerance and acceptance of human differences, than a place of exclusion and intolerance, and

 

FINALLY: That our state constitution not be used as a political device to further the aims of one political party in its appeals to the intolerance and fears of some citizens of our state.