Arguments about gay marriage have come to the forefront of American political discussion, and on Loyola’s campus students and professionals fought it out over civil liberties and religious sanctity last Thursday night. The Loyola Society for Civic Engagement sponsored the debate, which included guest speakers Michael Bronski and Darrell White.
“It’s not just a gay rights issue, but a basic social justice issue,” Bronski said. He is a noted culture critic and author of “The Pleasure Principle: Sex, Backlash, and the Struggle for Gay Freedom.”
Retired Baton Rouge City Court judge Darrell White defended marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
“If there is no procreative context to my marriage, if it doesn’t necessarily have to be about sex, then what’s to stop me from marrying my dog? Or my horse? Or my fishing buddies?” White asked.
Bronski noted some 1,400 economic and legal benefits given to heterosexual married couples that are currently being denied to gay couples. He said that America must create a legal system that serves everyone rather than just the majority. He also argued for civil and legal, but not necessarily religious, unions.
“I believe that [religion] has no place in the discussion of marriage, or any legal discourse. Separation of church and state happened in this country hundreds of years ago,” Bronski said. “This is about justice and fairness, not morality.”
White defended the exclusivity of marriage to a man and woman, commenting that “never until the last several milliseconds of human history has a society sanctioned homosexual pairings as the equivalent of a heterosexual marriage.”
White also said that although the American Psychological Association decided that homosexuality wasn’t a mental disease in 1973, they’re in the process of debating whether or not pedophilia is a disease.
“Now, no one has ever explained sexual orientation fully to me. Can I be oriented towards my dog?” White said.
Bronski replied that “no matter how many tricks the dog can do, it can’t legally consent, which is necessary for marriage.”
Students also engaged in the debate.
Jenica Tramontana, a Catholic Studies junior and member of Loyola Life, argued that while homosexuality may be acceptable, marriage is based on a unitive and procreative union.
“While homosexuals can have deep psychological unions, by definition, they cannot have a true sexual union,” said Tramontana. “Is the natural building of the family unit relative [to this debate]? I would say it is.”
Nick Nevares, a world religion senior and co-president of Etcetera, said that denying gays the right to marry is tantamount to blatant discrimination.
“If I say ‘fag,’ how many people in the room are offended?” he asked the audience. Almost everyone raised their hand. “So why are we intolerant to overt discrimination but not laws and institutions that uphold that discrimination?”
Kelly Brown can be reached at [email protected].
