Erika D. Smith: Tepid vote on HJR-3 proves times are changing
"This is the way the world ends. Not with a bang but a whimper."
For many in the ultraconservative wing of the Indiana Senate, I imagine these lines by T. S. Eliot seem particularly appropriate right now.
There are many lessons to take from what happened Monday. House Joint Resolution 3 passed as expected, the second, controversial sentence taken out, ensuring that any public referendum on putting a same-sex marriage ban in the state's constitution won't happen until at least 2016.
DATABASE: How Indiana senators voted on HJR-3
When the vote came, there were no cheers from those opposed to the amendment. No tears, either. Only sighs and resigned half-smiles.
They weren't upset, because they understood what really happened with the vote on HJR-3. They understand that the world is changing and that time is on their side, because of rapidly changing public opinion and the numerous legal challenges to gay marriage bans working their way through the courts.
Many of the senators who voted for HJR-3 know it, too. They'll even admit it. But, for whatever reason, they refuse to accept it.
Republican Sen. Jim Tomes put it best when he testified: "I was going to vote to kill this thing, but I'm going to vote to keep it going because it gives us one last chance."
He called defending marriage as a union solely between one man and one woman an "obligation," and he lamented that a sentence that also would ban unions similar to marriage had been eviscerated from the proposed amendment. But, then, Tomes said he understands it's a "changing world."
Plenty of Democrats who voted against HJR-3 echoed his words.
Sen. Tim Lanane testified that "time is not on the side of discrimination."
Sen. Greg Taylor cautioned lawmakers that times always change.
"You can put it in the constitution," he said, "but I guarantee there's gonna be a day when (the next generation) is going to have to take it out."
Then there's Sen. Mike Delph.
The Carmel Republican considers himself to be fighting the good fight for opposite-sex marriage and his brand of Christianity — what some would call "traditional" Hoosier values.
First came his dayslong Twitter tantrum. A spellbinding 200-plus tweets over 18 hours, and dozens more over the weekend. He called it "honest," "direct" "plain-spokenness," for which he is unapologetic.
Then came the sham of a news conference Monday morning, in which he announced he would vote against HJR-3 if the second sentence wasn't revived. He also lambasted the faith-based community for "sitting on their hands" and bowing to "political correctness" in not denouncing HJR-3.
Delph said all of this as people walked away from his much-hyped news conference one by one. And he said all of this as Twitter lit up with ridicule, accusing the senator of whining for no reason, being a sore loser and grandstanding for the sake of squeezing just a little more attention out of the press.
It's easy to come away thinking that Delph didn't have a point.
Maybe so.
But there's a lesson in what he did and, more importantly, in how Hoosiers reacted to what he did. It's important that he got mocked at least as much as he got praise. Not long ago, that would not have been the case.
What we are witnessing are the first real rumblings of a changing culture in Indiana. This has been happening in the urban areas of Indianapolis and Central Indiana for quite some time, but not so much in the rest of the state.
Here, in the center of the state, we take such differences of opinion for granted. We think we live in a bubble and that Hoosiers across the rest of the state are so far right that they identify only with the tea party.
Maybe that's not so true anymore.
Ask anyone who has made calls for Freedom Indiana, the grass-roots effort to take down HJR-3, and they'll tell you that people in small towns across Indiana opposed the amendment. State lawmakers in both parties have said the same, at times with a bit of surprise.
Indiana will be a conservative state for years to come. That's not in doubt.
But the question is: What brand of conservatism will it be? What will tolerance mean in the years to come? What will be considered "hate speech," and what will
be merely "politically incorrect"? Who will be accepted as equals, and who will be shunned for not accepting those people as equals?
My guess is that in a few years "traditional Hoosier values" won't mean the same thing that Delph and other conservative lawmakers think it means today. And that's OK.
The world isn't ending. But times are changing. And the only people whimpering will be those who fail to recognize that one, simple truth.
Call Star columnist Erika D. Smith at (317) 444-6424. Email her at erika.smith@indystar.com.