Vol. V, Issue 2: Summer 2007
Disintegrating Forum
the Gay Marriage Debate comes to CC106
by Alexa Ray Corriea

Every Natural Sciences student had been waiting eagerly for this day: the same-sex marriage integrated forum. The entire class (or us science nerds, anyhow) showed up at the SMG building an unnatural twenty minutes early, thrumming with anticipation and hovering near the doors in hopes of snagging a seat close to the stage. I've never seen so many people packed into an auditorium, much less for a Natty Sci lecture.

The panelists were a cast of characters that could only be described as motley. They seemed like a mystical council assembled from the high powers that reside at the four corners of the world, conferring to answer the question presented to them by Professor Nathan Phillips: What is the essential difference between gay and straight? And is orientation a choice? Everyone was hoping for a verbal melee. And we almost had one.

The first of our pro panelists was Peter Hams, the handsome son of the first legally married same-sex couple in Massachusetts. Peter had a relatively normal childhood, with the exception of having two women for parents. He kept his family situation a secret, afraid of what those around him might say. He didn’t want to be known as “the kid with two moms.” When Peter did decide to finally open up to his friends about the composition of his family, he found that they were supportive. Peter agreed that allowing homosexual couples to marry would benefit the children these couples may have, bestowing them with better health care along with legal and societal recognition.

The second speaker was Matthew McTighe, Political Director of MassEquality, the organization spearheading the fight to protect marriage equality in Massachusetts. Prior to settling on working in Massachusetts, Matt was a lobbyist in D.C. for the Human Rights Campaign. Matt assured us that the institution established by the homosexual couple is now more secure and stable than it was several years ago. He informed us that there are benefits and rights that homosexual couples in civil unions do not receive from the government—benefits and rights that are considered standard for married straight couples. Homosexual couples are asking for recognition, he told us, recognition that they do in fact love each other. Gays and lesbians are functioning members of society, too; why do we withhold benefits from citizens that contribute to our economy, simply because they have different sexual orientation? They are doing harm to no one and are not maliciously seeking to disrupt the institution of marriage; in fact, when polled, a whopping seventy percent of the CC106 class agreed that homosexual marriages would have no effect on the institution at all. Besides, even if you prohibit the marriage or civil union of same-sex couples, homosexuality will persevere despite this ban.

After McTighe, we heard from Dr. Carole Allen, Vice President of the Massachusetts Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics. She cares for patients from gay and lesbian households, and has a gay son and lesbian daughter. She cheerfully presented us with studies showing that children of same-sex couples lead lives similar to children of hetero couples, lives we call “normal.” She agreed with McTighe and Hams that allowing homosexuals to marry with the same legal and social protection as heterosexual couples would not only benefit the couple, but their children as well.

Dr. Dwight Duncan, a very energetic professor from the Southern New England School of Law, spoke against this position. He has argued cases and written briefs for both the Massachusetts and the United States Supreme Court. He said that many states have amended their constitutions so that marriage be defined explicitly as “between a man and woman,” thus banishing all hope of passing laws for same-sex marriage. Duncan presented us with his Burden of Proof: marriage has always, consistently throughout history, been between a man and woman, with or without religious implications. The boisterous lawyer reminded us that our country was founded on democracy and popular sovereignty, so why should we create a case and then put it in the justices’ hands to decide? If the population continuously shoots down laws and proposals allowing for homosexual marriage, then why are some of us still fighting for it? Even a majority of the CC106 class, forty-four percent, agreed with Duncan that government policies influence the structure of the family and reproductive decision. How could we escape this fact?

Lastly, we heard Evelyn Reilly, the Director of Public Policy for the Massachusetts Family Institute. Reilly advocated the protection of the nuclear family and life at all stages, arguing specifically that children of same-sex couples lead unfortunate lives, suffering abuse and other such unpleasant experiences. She referred to our dear Mr. Hams’s story as “nice, but anecdotal”; one story is simply an anecdote, while many stories together constitute the larger truth. She presented us with a book denouncing all biological implications of homosexuality and preached that same-sex marriage is detrimental to the institution of marriage and to the children these relationships produce.
Toward the end of the forum, Dr. Duncan asked the question that no one should ask: "Would you rather be raised by a mom and a dad, or by two moms or two dads?" The ensuing silence was deafening. No one wanted to answer, because we were all thinking the same thing: of course we would say that we were comfortable with whatever combination we were brought up with. It is a horrid question. Then from the back of the auditorium, a clear voice charged with passion yelled, "I JUST WANT PARENTS WHO LOVE ME!"

So it began. Dr. Duncan tried desperately to keep his cool and validate his point. "Marriage is two people loving each other! What's so wrong about that?" someone in the second row piped up. Duncan, visibly sweating, replied, "Just two people loving each other? What's to say if three people 'love each other' and decide to go out and get married? What's to stop people from going out and marrying their horse or dog?"

There was a visible uproar. Incredulity rippled through the auditorium; a girl in my row indignantly shrieked, "BUT A DOG CAN'T SIGN A MARRIAGE LICENSE!"

Earlier that same week, we had watched a series of interviews and TV specials saying that links have been found between genes and homosexuality. During our discussions of the biology of reproduction and attraction, we have come to the impression that most—if not the entirety—of the staff of CC106 accepts homosexuality and is in favor of same-sex marriage, an opinion shared by eighty-one percent of their students.

It was not surprising, then, that when Reilly held up a book declaring “all biological factors contributing to homosexuality are not real, “that the room was in an uproar. As Reilly continued to quote the text—“All of those theories are false;” “It's just an alternative lifestyle that is detrimental to society”—I’ve never seen so many people so darn angry. Some of us wanted to leap onto that stage and give Duncan and Reilly a piece of our minds, if not several very large pieces. The poll Professor Phillips presented us with just a week earlier did not lie: nearly eighty percent of us agreed that marriage is most important as an expression of love and commitment, a commitment to harbor children and aid in their growth and maturation into functional members of society.

Matt McTighe was right when he said that outlawing same-sex marriage will not make homosexuality go away. Homosexuality is a form of love—regardless of its genetic or psychological origins—and love has a way of persevering, even flourishing. in the face of even the most violent adversity. Love is the crowning grace of humanity, according to Petrarch (who does not specify whether he means gay, straight, or otherwise). DI