Love, Commitment, Fairness, Freedom

The American Constitution Society and the Federalist Society sponsored a debate on the issue of 'gay marriage' last night at Stanford Law School between Evan Wolfson of the Freedom to Marry Coalition and Lou Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition.

"In 1948, 90 percent of the population was against interracial marriage, but California's courts were the first to have the courage to strike down the ban as unconstitutional," Wolfon said. "Not everything should get put up to a vote," he added. "There are rights and there should be protection for the unpopular."

Sheldon, in response, accused gay marriage supporters of pursuing a political agenda to "forcefully redefine and undermine society's most basic and fundamental institution."

Personally, as a gay person, I can directly refute Sheldon's idea that my agenda somehow seeks to 'forcefully redefine and undermine' marriage. The responsibilities and commitment that comes with marriage would be a boon to gay people and thereby to society in general.

Sheldon's views are immoral, shameful, irresponsible, self-serving tripe. This ain't like debating one's predilection for chocolate or vanilla ice cream. These issues are important issues effecting the lives of gay families. This debate ought to end and the anti-gay religious folk (there are many religious folk of all denominations who are pro-gay) ought to stop the religious violence and bible abuse they use to support their personal fears and prejudices.

I'm here. I'm gay. If you have been misled into believing gay people are fundamentally flawed human beings who ought to be relegated to a second-class status please ask me about your misperceptions and I'll respond from the viewpoint of a living breathing gay human being (about whom there's a lot of false information floating around courtesy of mostly the religious right). Nothing is off limits.

I'm militant when it comes to standing up for my gay friends and family and against those who seek to vilify, denigrate or slander us. I'm militant when it comes to life and death issues like equality under the law. Wouldn't you be? My agenda isn't 'to be liked' but 'to provide a voice' for those (like me when I was a gay youth) who are unable or afraid to speak up.

And remember the images of black students seeking to enter and integrate into white schools and being stopped by people holding a bible and pointing to some passage that they thought (or were told) supported segregation. It is now as it always has been. Religion, in the hands of the irresponsible, can be manipulated to support even the most heinous of ideas.

Sincerely,
Patrick

•••

Gay marriage debate heats up
By Gerry Shih
Thursday, April 21, 2005

Evan Wolfson of the Freedom to Marry Coalition and Reverend Lou Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition debated the issue of gay marriage last night at the Law School in front of an audience of hundreds of students, faculty and community members.

Moderated by KQED host Angie Coiro, the debate covered a range of legal, ethical, scientific and moral issues before opening up for questions.

Sheldon affirmed a “natural” view of marriage — that procreation is only possible through heterosexuality and separate from the legal and social issues surrounding homosexuality. But Wolfson attacked what he called Sheldon’s attempt to impose religious beliefs on the legal system and charged Sheldon with being “anti-separation of church and state.”

Some of Sheldon’s statements drew muffled groans and jeers from the audience, composed mostly of law students, while Wolfson, with whom the audience was clearly aligned, sparked bursts of laughter in the room with his sharp retorts.

Wolfson, who graduated from Harvard Law School, was most recently named one of the Time Magazine’s “100 Most Influential People in the World” and was also included in The National Law Journal’s “100 most influential lawyers in America” in 2000 for his appearance before the U.S. Supreme Court in the Boys Scouts of America v. James Dale case.

Across the table and ideological worlds apart from Wolfson sat Sheldon, a Presbyterian pastor who first took opposition to the “homosexual agenda” in 1972. Since then the cause has consumed his life as the Traditional Values Coalition has risen to become the most prominent anti-gay marriage organization in America.

Wolfson opened the debate by dismissing polls that indicate Americans disapprove of gay marriage and instead made an appeal to a different kind of values.

“The values are simple: love, commitment, fairness, freedom,” Wolfson said. “Ask yourself, which position reflects these core American values?”

Wolfson challenged the American majority opinion and repeatedly cited the California Supreme Court’s 1948 ruling of Perez v. Lippold — a decision that declared bans on interracial marriages unconstitutional — as a precedent to today’s debate over gay marriage.

“In 1948, 90 percent of the population was against interracial marriage, but California’s courts were the first to have the courage to strike down the ban as unconstitutional,” Wolfon said.

“Not everything should get put up to a vote,” he added. “There are rights and there should be protection for the unpopular.”

Sheldon, in response, accused gay marriage supporters of pursuing a political agenda to “forcefully redefine and undermine society’s most basic and fundamental institution.”

“The basic unit of society is the family, and the family is sexually, spiritually and culturally brought together,” he said. “The cornerstone of a family is marriage, and the essence of marriage is the consummation of a coupled union, a union of husband and wife.”

The two exchanged salvos of statistics and scientific findings regarding divorce rates, psychology of children raised by same-sex couples and even genetics.

“The lowest divorce rate in the country is in Massachusetts,” Wolfson cited to support the state’s breakthrough gay marriage law. “And there are no locusts descending on Massachusetts.”

At one point, the room erupted into laughter when Sheldon countered one of Wolfson’s claims by saying, “That’s typical liberal goobalee-gooble.”

“The government has no business telling people what sexuality they should be, and we don’t have that right,” Sheldon said. “But marriage is a legal institution. Homosexuality is a gender identity conflict, a social issue — not a legal issue to be given legal rights for.”

The event was sponsored by the American Constitution Society, or ACS, and the Federalist Society.

“People read a lot about this issue but rarely get an opportunity to hear both sides directly respond to each other,” said third-year law student and ACS president Daniel Goldman following the debate. “They were fresh and real perspectives on an issue that felt tangible.”

But not everyone in the audience left the debate so optimistic. An audience member, who requested to be anonymous, accused Sheldon during the question-and-answer session of endorsing anti-gay signs with the words “hate” and “kill.” Sheldon firmly denied any association with the signs during the session, but his response did not appease the audience member.

“I just don’t understand how people can preach so much love and yet have so much hate,” said the anonymous attendee after the room had been vacated. “I’m just so livid, so hurt.”