Students debate legality of same-sex marriage

The local gay and lesbian community came out in force to argue for same-sex marriage following a public debate on campus Friday.

Four members of Utah State University’s speech and debate team squared off in the Sunburst Lounge on the legality of same-sex marriage. The event was attended by about 75 people, many who came forward to comment during an open-microphone session.

“The U.S. Constitution does not define marriage. Congress is waiting to see what happens in the Massachusetts court before deciding what to do, [whether] a constitutional amendment needs to be made,” said Tom Worthen, speech and debate team adviser.

Same-sex marriage is a hot topic nationwide since the mayor of San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses to gay couples Thursday despite a California law prohibiting it. About 2,425 gay marriages have been performed as of Tuesday.

Unlike the affirmative action debate last month, Friday’s debate was strictly an academic one in which the debaters were assigned to a side independent of their personal beliefs, the first speaker set up the terms of the debate, and the other speakers focused on directly criticizing the logic of arguments made by the opposition.

The pro same-sex marriage team, Rachel Swim and Adam Fulton, defined marriage as a “consensual union between two adults to reflect love and companionship” and said the social trend is to accept gay marriage. Team members Heather Hancock and Trevor Linderman challenged the definition as too broad.

“By giving this broad, ambiguous definition that is between two consenting adults, they open it up for all kinds of things to happen,” Linderman said. “Two consenting adults can be a man and a man, a man and a woman, or even a brother and a brother, or a brother and a sister.”

Fulton said that since there were already laws forbidding incest, Linderman’s argument was outside the realm of the debate. Hancock replied that there also used to be laws against sodomy which were repealed.

“According to their social-trends-make-it-OK [logic], eventually in the future, there could be social trends that make it so that incest, polygamy and other things like that could eventually become OK if we set this precedence,” Hancock said.

Swim, refuting that claim, said, “allowing these [gay] unions to occur does not allow for incest to occur.”

Hancock said her position was not to say “gay people are bad.”

“We should protect marriage from being polluted by all the other forms of sexuality,” she said. “We should protect marriage and the 6,000 years of culture that have gone along with it.”

Swim said that under the 14th Amendment which guarantees equality, gays are given the right to marry. Linderman said the 14th Amendment has only been applied to equality in regards to race, quoting Colin Powell saying there is a clear distinction between race and sexual orientation, and that they cannot be combined in issues.

Swim pointed out the economic benefits denied to gay partners in the event one partner dies, such as Social Security, pension and property rights. If one member of a gay union dies, she said, his or her property goes to the nearest blood relative, rather than to the life partner.

Linderman said people don’t have to be married to get joint ownership, they can write a will and get those privileges now. Fulton asked how it is equality for same-sex partners to have to take extra steps to get privileges built into legal marriage.

Swim said the majority rules in America, and cited a Gallup poll that found six out of 10 Americans support same-sex marriage. Linderman refuted the statement, saying that 38 states have a ban on same-sex marriage, and that three dominate religions – Judaism, Christianity and Islam – all say there is something wrong with homosexuality.

“Our nation as a whole believes this is not right,” he said.

Fulton said the focus of the debate was on equality, not morality, and reminded the audience of the separation of church and state.

The debaters explored the similarities between the possibility of using the Constitution to reserve marriage for heterosexuals, and the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s. Swim said Prohibition was the only amendment to the Constitution that restricted rights, and it failed.

“If we add another amendment to block same-sex marriage, it’s going to lead to a very scary precedence saying the United States can now add amendments onto our Constitution that says we are taking away your rights rather than upholding them,” she said.

Linderman said Prohibition failed because it was not enforced.

When the stage was opened to audience members, Tom Robins, College Repub-lican state chairman, said that if marriage is redefined to a union between consenting adults, by that logic there was nothing to stop him from marrying his twin brother.

“If we’re over 18 years old and we’re consenting adults, you tell me how that’s hurting each other,” Robins said. “That’s the next step, that’s the moral decline, that’s the pillar that will crumble, and that’s how our society will fall just like the Roman Empire.”

Eduardo Nunez, a senior in human resources, stood up and said he was homosexual, a Christian and attended church regularly.

“The Bible says way too many things,” Nunez said. “If we were to follow what the Bible says, the first woman that steps up here and talks in public, she would be stoned, just like that.”

Nunez said, “It doesn’t matter what you people think about judging morality. You people can do whatever you want in your church, but leave my home alone.”

Glenn Butterfield, a freshman in psychology, said that historically and socially, families with a husband and a wife are the foundation of society.

“Where these type of [traditional unions] are broken up, society struggles,” he said, citing the Roman Empire as an example. “We need to look at this logically, scientifically, and cease to just look at it purely emotionally and politically correct. Aside from religion, it’s just not a good idea socially.”

Teresa Koper, studying for a master’s in biology, said she is a lesbian, married a lesbian and plans to have children one day.

An audience member shouted, “With who?” and Koper replied, “With my partner. Sperm is very easy to come by.”

Koper said families with gay parents are just as strong and stable as traditional families.

“The studies do indicate that two parents are more important for raising a family than one, just as long as there are two loving adults,” she said.

Students interested in joining the speech and debate club are invited to attend meetings Wednesdays at 6 p.m. in Old Main, Room 115.

-heidithue@cc.usu.edu