Marriage or civil unions for gay couples will likely have to be decided by the federal government, according to a Nashville area minister and an activist who debated the topic on campus Tuesday night.
Sonnye Dixon, pastor of Hobson United Methodist Church, and Jerry Flowers, spokesman for the conservative group Nashvillians for a Brighter Future, discussed gay marriage and a possible amendment to the U.S. Constitution as part of a debate sponsored by Alpha Omega and the Campus Freethought Alliance.
Political science professor John Maynor moderated the debate in the State Farm Room at the Business and Aerospace building.
Both debaters agreed that gay marriage is an emotional and divisive issue, and one that will ultimately be decided by Congress or the federal courts, but they disagreed about the need for a constitutional amendment.
"We have real problems when our Constitution tells what we can't do," Dixon said. "It should not be a document that prohibits the rights of individuals. The federal government should be involved in guaranteeing people's rights."
Flowers said that although 38 states have adopted measures that define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, these acts may not be legal under current federal law.
"The problem is the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution," Flowers said. "It's interpreted a number of different ways depending on which side you are on a particular issue. Basically the full faith and credit clause says that all contracts entered into in one state are honored in other states.
"Ultimately, we are going to get down to a Constitutional argument."
Flowers said that most Americans don't want to have to amend the Constitution to define marriage.
"The country is pretty evenly split on whether we need an amendment or not," Flowers said. "It's not split on the issue of same-sex marriage. A clear and convincing majority disapproves of same-sex marriage."
Dixon said that he remembers when many of the same arguments he hears today about gay marriages were said about interracial marriages decades ago.
"Sometimes the majority has it wrong," Dixon said. "Times change and we evolve."
Flowers said that gays do not qualify as a minority under the law that would allow them federal protection from discrimination since no one can prove that homosexuality is biological or a lifestyle choice.
"I don't know if it is biological or not. As a Christian, I don't worry about it," Flowers said.
"The majority of people I have encountered in my life who are homosexuals were born that way," Dixon said, "You don't put yourself out there for the kind of attack that we have in society, you don't put yourself out there to be victimized unless that is honestly who you believe you are."
Flowers fielded several questions from the audience about the fairness of gay couples not being able to share in the same benefits as heterosexual couples, like visiting a partner in the hospital.
"A durable power-of-attorney will take care of that," Flowers said. "In non-marriage situations, you should have a power-of-attorney that covers that. There are ways around it."
Dixon rebutted that if there are ways to get around it, that's what makes it discriminatory.
Some students who attended the debate said they came in with clear opinions on the matter, while others said they were undecided. But most said they wanted to hear both sides.
Jessica Heckle, a junior elementary education major, said that she is opposed to gay marriage "but I'd like to see why people reason the way they do."
Knista Chayangkura, a junior journalism major, said that while she firmly supports gay marriage, "I want to see the different sides, and hear what people are saying."
Before the debate, junior marketing major Carly Bruce said that she wasn't sure where she stood on the issue.
"If you love that person, then you should be together," Bruce said. "I hope this [debate] gives me different points of view. I know the Bible says its wrong, but today, anything goes."
After the debate, Bruce said she was still unsure.
"They both made good points," she said.
1 comments
Ms. Bruce, even though undecided, called the issue exactly what it is. It really isn't that gay marriage is a localized lapse in moral judgment, it is the symptom of a problem that Ms. Bruce clearly identified: that anything goes in America now.
Dixon can dance around it all he wants, but if he really is an advocate of Christianity and the Bible, there is absolutely no way he can get around the fact that this is wrong!
If nothing else, I would love to see someone in this country who actually has the gall to stand up for his moral platform instead of dropping guard at the first sign of confrontation.