By Kaitlin Andorfer
The ongoing controversy surrounding homosexual marriages was further discussed during the Day of Dialogue on Oct.13 in a lecture entitled “Gay Marriage Since the Massachusetts Decision.”
For many homosexual couples hoping to get married, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Massachusetts on gay marriages, on Nov.18, 2003 was a day to rejoice.
In a 4-3 ruling, the court gave the Massachusetts state legislature six months to rewrite the state’s marriage laws, to the benefit of gay couples.
This controversial decision drew quick reaction to those on both sides of the issue and paved the way for much debate on this topic going into an election year.
The University welcomed a panel of speakers, including Mayor Jason West of New Paltz, NY, Boston University Political Science Professor Susan Shell and University Law Professor James Garland.
West, who became the second mayor in the country to perform same-sex marriages by initially marrying 25 couples earlier this year, started the debate.
Most people in the U.S. refuse to admit homosexual civil rights and by disallowing same-sex marriages, they are depriving them of their 1,049 rights marriage guarantees, West said. In order to be married, a couple must go to a local magistrate and if you choose, you have a religious ceremony to go along with it.
“Marriage is the act of making public what is already in two people’s hearts anyway,” West said.
West described how those who came to New Paltz to get married came because they wanted to be newlyweds just like anyone else, not because they wanted to make a political statement, or share health benefits.
“I will do everything in my power to help a couple because it’s important to them,” West said.
Shell, an opponent of gay marriages and took over the floor after West. Shell spoke about the detriments of gay marriage, and called it “selfish” and “immoral.”
She explained it is selfish because it opposes a moral rule stated in the constitution and puts the interests of a small group of people ahead of more important interests like the upcoming election.
“[Gay] Marriage means limited fertility and it can’t be whatever we want it to be,” Shell said.
Shell spoke largely about her fear of homosexual married couples wanting to have the same right to children as any married couple does.
“Children will believe that homosexual relationships are as necessary to society as heterosexual relationships,” Bell said. “This is a potentially dangerous social gamble.”
“I thought Susan Bell’s points were invalid,” Emily King, a University sophomore, said. “She incorporated children into the argument too much.”
In response to Bell, Professor James Garland stated how sex without birth control is as non-procreative as homosexual sex.
He went on to talk about the Supreme Court case of “Bower v. Hartwick,” in which homosexuals had no rights and could be criminally punished for having sex.
“When the Supreme Court reversed itself last year in the Massachusetts Decision, the plan was to go state by state,” Garland said. “Gays panicked because we
were not presenting this in a legal way or letting the country adjust.”
Many in America are worried because if gay marriage can be written into the constitution, then it can’t be changed for a significant amount of time. Garland went on to say that not everything that is important to us is written in the Constitution, like food, water and housing, and that this issue is important to people too.
“Mayor West was a great speaker,” Jessica Prevelige, a University senior, said. “Susan Bell compared a homosexual couple to two elderly women which I thought was very insulting.”
Students discuss debates, war in Iraq and gay marriages. (Brian Barry/The Chronicle)