One of the Best Marriage Equality Debates You'll Ever Listen To
Published June 21, 2009 @ 07:51AM PT
Remember that scene in "Milk" where Harvey debates California State Senator John Briggs over the merits of Proposition Six, the California ballot measure that would have allowed public schools to fire gay and lesbian teachers? The part I remember most about that storyline is how vital those debates were between Milk and Briggs, and how Harvey was able to use those debates to point out the ridiculousness and the bigotry that lurked behind Briggs's concerns over gay people in the public school system.
It's rare that a debate matches those Milk vs. Briggs affairs, but we now have one coming out of Pennsylvania on the issue of marriage equality. Pennsylvania State Senator Daylin Leach has introduced a bill in the Keystone State to legalize same-sex marriage. Meanwhile, another State Senator, John Eichelberger, has introduced a bill that would put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to ban same-sex marriage. Opposing bills coming from two state senators.
And this week, they debated each other on WHYY in Philadelphia. And the result? Well, State Senator Daylin Leach, a marriage equality advocate, was able to school State Sen. Eichelberger and in the process, pull the rug out from the myriad of bogus arguments used by anti-same-sex marriage folks to continually discriminate against LGBT people. The two senators tackle nearly every issue surrounding same-sex marriage. You can listen to the debate here, but below we'll summarize a few brief points from State Senator Daylin Leach hitting on a number of crap arguments that anti-LGBT forces make. This debate is worth listening to no matter where you live, as the issues certainly transcend Pennsylvania. Because this just may be one of the best marriage equality debates you'll ever listen to. Hit it....
Concerns Over "Activist" Courts:
Leach: "A court that enacts equality doesn't have to be an activist court. It could just be following the law, which is what Massachusetts did when it legalized same-sex marriage."
Constitutional Amendments and Courts:
Leach: "If there's a court that was bent on declaring same-sex marriage legal, they could just ignore a [state's] constitutional amendment and rule under the federal constitution, and its equal protection clause, which overrules any state constitution.
The Illegitimacy of Ballot Measures:
Leach: "If you put slavery on the ballot, Jim Crow, even interracial marriage on the ballot in many parts of the country, it would have lost....We revere the legislators that voted for civil rights even though it was unpopular in some of their states, even Al Gore's father who lost his seat over [civil rights]. Our job as legislators is to do what's right, not to give voice to every whim of a majority to oppress a minority."
The Influence of the Civil Rights Movement on LGBT Rights:
Leach: "This is in line with the racial civil rights movement and the struggle for equality that women went through, and the struggle for equality that immigrants fought. [LGBT discrimination] is the last sort of acceptable discrimination in society. It's getting less and less, but it's our job [as legislators] to put the nail in the coffin and grant full equality for everyone."
On Trying to Push Through an Amendment Banning Gay Marriage Multiple Times in Pennsylvania:
Leach: "[Opponents of marriage equality] attempted to get a ban passed three years ago when there were many more legislators sympathetic [to a ballot measure] than now. And they failed then."
The Future of Marriage Equality:
Leach: "In 20 years, all 50 states, it's inevitable, will have same-sex marriage. And we'll wonder, like interracial marriage, why this was ever controversial."
The Fallacy that Gay Marriage will Harm Society:
Leach: "The idea that there are tens of thousands of studies [that show gay marriage harms society] is wrong....every study on the issue says that children of gay marriage and gay marriage itself does nothing adverse to society. You would think that if it did, we would notice it."
Dismantling the Slippery Slope Argument that Gay Marriage Could Lead to Bestiality or Polygamy:
Leach: "This is an argument not against gay marriage, but against all marriage - if you allow anyone to marry, you have to allow everyone to marry. The idea that if you allow two men to get married, you'd have to allow a man to marry an aardvark or his lawn mower is just not accurate. We draw reasonable lines all the time in society. You can drive 65mph, but not 95mph; you can keep a gun but not a truck bomb. To me the line should be drawn [on marriage] where it allows everyone to marry the one person that they most love in the world."
Share this Post
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
EmailRelated Posts
-
Harvey Milk Finally Gets His Day
-
Leveraging Stonewall Anniversary for LGBT Outreach
-
Will the Great Lakes be the Next New England on Marriage Equality?
Comments (33)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Author
-
Michael is the Communications Director for the Human Rights Program at Harvard Law School, and previously was Communications Director for Pax Christi USA, a progressive Catholic human rights organization.
Featured Gay Rights Actions
-
-
Help Repeal the Defense of Marriage Act!
12557 People
-
Help Repeal the Defense of Marriage Act!
-
"Gay Marriage Could Lead to Bestiality or Polygamy": that's just another way to say that gay people are animals. We're not. It's not an argument but an accusation. We don't eat children either. The USA already has serial polygamy, and every sort or variation on it. Christians get divorces, most marriages end in divorce already, and without being offensive, heterosexists engage in a wide range of behavior. Gay partners are measurably more stable, all things being equal, and their children measurably well adjusted.
Posted by Isa Kocher on 06/21/2009 @ 08:51AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Well said Isa. I'm not sure why so many people automatically jump to the "gay marriage=bestiality" come on, that's more than just a bit ridiculous.
It's like when people say "Gays being allowed to marry is the downfall of the institution of marriage" when in actuality it's people like Britney Spears who has a quickie wedding in Vegas and has it annulled a day later or men who vow to honor, love and respect their wives only to take the liberty to beat the hell out of them whenever they'd like, or women who cheat on their spouses...etc etc. Two people who love each other should be allowed to marry one another, regardless of gender or sexuality.
Posted by Christina Witkowski on 06/21/2009 @ 02:44PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
that's just another way to say that gay people are animals We're not?
We don't eat children either. Okay everyone, this weekends bar-b-que is OFF!
The USA already has serial polygamy, and every sort or variation on it. Damn those FLDS and Muslims, they just get everything they want. :(
Posted by Dave Hershey on 06/22/2009 @ 06:28PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I think the slippery slope arguments are just a cheap way of inflaming people's "yuck" response to homosexuality and of reducing homosexuality to a sexual pathology.
It makes it easier for them to handwave when we point out that every reputable professional health- and science-related organization in the world, based on reams of research data that debunk the notion, no longer considers homosexuality a pathology.
Posted by Gabe Small on 06/23/2009 @ 05:23AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
It's great that Daylin Leach has made good rebutes against the intolerance of John Eichelberger. In addition, it's also great that Daylin Leach has introduced a bill that would recognize the necessary LGBT right of same-sex marriage. John Eichelberger's introduction for an amendment of intolerance against the LGBT community is unjustified. The rebutes which Daylin Leach shows that the intolerant arguments against same-sex marriage is of nonsense.
Posted by Edwin Bonilla on 06/21/2009 @ 03:40PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Kudos to Senator Leach for fighting for the equal human rights of LGBT Pennsylvanians. Senator Leach's lively debate with Senator Eichelberger was indeed impressive. Leach's action and words give much hope to many LGBT Pennsylvanians as he repudiated Eichelberger's archaic and discriminatory arguments with intelligent insight, wisdom, and grace. I urge anyone interested in securing equality for LGBT citizens to listen to this debate.
Posted by Bryan D. Freehling on 06/21/2009 @ 08:19PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Sen. Eichelberger talked about rewarding. What rewarding? We are not asking for rewarding; we are asking for eqaul rights! My goodness, can't he just understand that?
And talking about the benefits to the society? That's a very stupid argument. I always believe everyone contributes more or less to the society. To say that LGBTs don't really contribute to society is a very very stupid argument. For the very obvious example, we pay taxes both states and federal; not to mention we help local economy and other more important things such as teaching, curing, researching and more.
Why would we change the fundamental marriage when this has been prooved for thousand years? First of all, what has this model been prooved? Been prooved that it works? Works as what? Works as there has never been divorce and they live together forever? Works that the children of straight couples are all better than the childrend of LGBT couples? If the argument is just saying that the childrend of LGBT couples will never be raise the same as the childrend of straight couples, of course that's correct because that is correct for every each couple, not just straight or LGBT couples.
Choosing to be a LGBT or a striaght? Sen. Leach's argument is the best ever when he asked Sen. Eichelberger if he woke up one day and weighed pros and cons and chose to be straight. That's always my question to the straights and even LGBTs.
I really hope Pensylvanians will be open minded and fair to all and understand that each individual is different and differences are not harmful, but beautiful.
Posted by Peter Tantakarn on 06/21/2009 @ 09:58PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
You have raised some great points as did Senator Leach. Something that boggles my mind is that if being LGBT were truly a choice, why would anyone choose to be discriminated against? Seriously, I can never get an honest answer from heterosexuals who think that sexual orientation is a choice.
Posted by Dave Hershey on 06/22/2009 @ 04:27PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
The government recognizes the inherent benefits of heterosexual marriage simply because it is only that union that directly procreates. Same sex couples must always go out side of their relationship to raise children.
Children come to same sex couples through in vitro, adoption or previous heterosexual relationships (Wait, how does that work if one is born gay? It sounds like there were some choices made ...) I don't know of any african americans who one day are white and the next day are black.
Seriously, this is a great country. You can do pretty much whatever you want. Marriage is too important to too many people to simply redefine so some feelings won't be hurt. Kids long for mothers and fathers. Lets focus on their needs.
Posted by Ellen Rose on 06/22/2009 @ 08:51AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Ellen, you stated that The government recognizes the inherent benefits of heterosexual marriage simply because it is only that union that directly procreates, but you clearly didn't listen to the debate since you completely IGNORED Senator Leach's response. If you are going to be consistent in that particular argument, then we should also bar women in their senior years from marrying since they can no longer "procreate." We should bar men and women who are infertile from marrying because they cannot procreate "naturally." We should bar men and women who refuse to have children since they are not "benefiting" society by procreating.
Children come to same sex couples through in vitro, adoption or previous heterosexual relationships (Wait, how does that work if one is born gay? It sounds like there were some choices made ...) What the hell are you trying to say? This statement makes ZERO sense, please rephrase.
You also stated I don't know of any african americans who one day are white and the next day are black, but once again you ignore those who are referred to as "passers." These are men and women who are light skinned "enough" to pass as white. It was VERY common in the Jim Crow era for these individuals to "pass" as white as they knew they had more opportunities.
Seriously, this isn't as great of a country as you would like to believe. When compared to other industrialized counties we don't even make the top 10 when it comes to the Human Development Index (we are ranked 15th.)
Just because some people like to make the claim that the US is the best country doesn't make it a fact. I'm all for nationalism, but when that claim isn't backed up by the facts, the claim is false.
Posted by Dave Hershey on 06/22/2009 @ 10:46AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Bravo Dave! Totally 100% agree with you.
Posted by Peter Tantakarn on 06/22/2009 @ 04:13PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Me personally I am not for Gay Rights or Women’s Rights, I am just for Equal Rights. As a Sometimes White Looking Male not married without any kids it seems like the more Labels we attach to Rights the more Rights I end up loosing in the long run. I am no more than 25% of any Race so no Race takes me on as one of them. It is assumed I am Anglo Saxon, Spanish, Mexican or Native American, of which I have received the prejudice for. I do not doubt that there is inequality but usually Education and Enforcing Equal Rights is the answer. When there is any form of inequality I try to be helpful, speak my mind or at least vote. For example…
I am a bit confused.
Who are these same sex married couples hurting? I know that some Churches perspectives say that it is hurting the children and there is nothing more important than protecting our children.
Separation of Church and State
The Church has the right to hold information that can help a current crime investigation.
The Church can be a Sanctuary from just about anything including the Law.
The Church can knowingly expose children to pedophiles and never tell a sole.
One of the Higher Ranking Members of the Church can sexually offend a child and just be moved to another Church without involving the Law. (Talk about don’t ask don’t tell)
The Courts cannot tell the Church what to do or force them to tell the truth.
Yet when a Church decides to marry a couple that just happens to be the same sex, why does the Law step in and say No?
Why can the Law step in and tell a Church No you cannot marry a couple that is of the same sex and yet sits by as these pedophiles within SOME Churches right now are scheduling summer camps and sleepovers. So then the Law is there to protect our children from things that may happen eventually but not what is happening now.
Pool your resources and go to Court fighting both of these issues with the same Lawyers. The Church can fight for their Equal Rights. Imagine combining this as one case Either way you would think the court would have to make a final decision one way or the other, “The Law can or cannot tell the Church what to do.” Then play a little Chess and think a few moves ahead. Church will be of course defined by that which the Law states for eligibility for Tax Exempt Status. They probably will eventually try to change the Tax Exempt Status Laws…Check
Be Helpful, Not Hurtful
Posted by Charles Hancock on 06/22/2009 @ 11:34AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Thank you for your support Charles and I agree with your stance on labeling; however, the problem is that society creates these labels and unfortunately we have to work within those labels.
As far as the religous argument, I've been somewhat flabergasted as to why we haven't had any religious organizations filing federal suit based on their First Amendment rights of freedom of religion. It seems if the Episcopal Church, United Church of Christ and other allies were to challenge DOMA in federal court they would win simply based on the First Amendment.
Posted by Dave Hershey on 06/22/2009 @ 11:57AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I agree with you on two very good points: "...the more Labels we attach to Rights the more Rights I (we) end up losing in the long run." -very self explanatory and very succinct. And, bringing the Church in is brilliant. What would happen if any of the various denominations should decide that they would allow and/or recognize same sex marriages as part of their religious code. Where would that play into the eyes of the government? Would not the government be forced to recognize these marriages in that the government must accept the principals of the various religions as unique and valid because we do have the separation of Church and State? The State cannot dictate what the Church does, any more than the Church can dictate what the State does. By this principal, the Church has no right dictating who can or cannot marry, because it is out of their legal arena. And the State cannot dictate who gets married because it becomes a civil rights violation. By these guidelines, both the Church AND the State are violating the law.
Posted by Barbara McNamara on 06/25/2009 @ 12:02PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Way to go Senator Leach on pushing your argument on Same Sex Marriage and Dave you are right on target as always. Some day we will have same sex marriage but it will take a lot of people like Senator Leach to change people's Minds.
Posted by Martin Martinez on 06/22/2009 @ 01:25PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
You are so correct Martin. I think part of the problem is that we truly do have a lot of elected Democrats (and Republicans for that matter) that believe same-sex couples should be granted marriage equality, but they simply cannot state it publicly because of the constituents that they represent. Take Cheney for example, I really can't stand Dick and his cop-out in 2004 and now in 2009 has finally made his beliefs public.
I'm not sure if too many people remember what he said in 2004 when Shrub was trying to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment, "I support the President" was Cheney's response - because Republicans are always on message. I keep thinking to myself that the Democratic Party "tent" has become entirely too big. Believe it or not, the Democrats still have Dixiecrats in the party, they have simply shifted their bias against African-Americans and Latinos to being against LGBTs.
Posted by Dave Hershey on 06/22/2009 @ 06:03PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Again, Dave, bravo!
Posted by Peter Tantakarn on 06/22/2009 @ 04:20PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Thanks Peter :)
Posted by Dave Hershey on 06/22/2009 @ 05:56PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I live in TX and 4 years ago had to fight a marriage ban amendment. We failed miserably. But just this week, a new poll suggets 57% of Texans now favor some form of legal recognition for gay couples- be it civil unions or marriage. If we have come that far in 4 years in a state that is still majority Republican, I don't think it is unreasonable for gay marriage to be legal in all 50 states in the next 20 years as the Senator suggests. I just wish it were sooner.
Posted by John McClelland on 06/24/2009 @ 09:29AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I think the Sen. were cautious about the numbers. Personally I think when change comes, it comes fast.
But now it's up to us if we really want it or not. If we do, we have to work on - donating money, canvassing, protesting, calling or emailing the governors or congressmen or ...
Posted by Peter Tantakarn on 06/24/2009 @ 08:16PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
There is nothing in DOMA about domestic partners. DOMA only applies to the term marriage. So, any level of government can grant rights to domestic partners. This applies to the Memo President Obama signed last week allowing some benefits to partners of Federal employees, but not other benefits. The President cited in his statements before signing, DOMA prevented granting full benefits -- but it only prevents full benefits from being extended to MARRIED same-sex couples, not domestic partners. If President Obama really wanted to help us, he could start with realizing there is a loophole in DOMA.
Please read DOMA closely and see if you agree with what I found. I would like to be treated as an equal citizen under the law.
Posted by Jo Schmoker on 06/24/2009 @ 04:31PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
One more thing about Sen. John Eichelberger's comments about equal right support that he said they would support that because they would feel good. No! Come on! It's about feeling good; it's about feel right and fair and open minded and empathic. I guess Sen. John Eichelberger has none of those to LGBTs.
Posted by Peter Tantakarn on 06/24/2009 @ 08:19PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Having this equal right makes you feel human after all. Oh, c'mon..if your contented of that then why bother? polygamy is polygamy but who cares about it? After all it won't feed you! I've heared a lot couples living together with the same sex issue but still going strong with their relationship.After all it won't feed you! This is about how you feel and not of that the others.
Posted by Marty Rodriguez on 06/25/2009 @ 07:58PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Huh? Your post has me TOTALLY confused. I'm not sure if you are trying to argue in favor or against same-sex marriage.
As far as polygamy, I can give you several reasons as to why the state should not get involved in polygamous relationships.
Posted by Dave Hershey on 06/25/2009 @ 08:07PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I am really confused if you are pro or against equal rights. But anyway, apart from feeling right, openminded and emphatic, it's really about fairness in term of laws such as taxes, social security, hospital visit, sponsor partners to live here. So come on now!
Posted by Peter Tantakarn on 06/25/2009 @ 10:57PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Marty, civil marriage is a legal license that carries numerous legal benefits and responsibilities, both for the couple involved and for any children they bring into the family together. Marriage licenses are not symbolic, they're mundane and practical, and they affect people's lives in very tangible ways.
This fight isn't about scoring a symbolic victory. It's about equal protection under the law, upholding America's founding ideals of freedom, equality, and justice.
Yeah, I guess that feels pretty good.
Posted by Gabe Small on 06/26/2009 @ 03:03AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Thank you Gabe!
Posted by Peter Tantakarn on 06/26/2009 @ 09:36PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
By the way, if you want to send or post a link to the debate, but you're hesitant about linking directly to the MP3, you can link to the synopsis by adding a search string to Radio Times' search page URL, like this:
http://www.whyy.org/cgi-bin/newwebRTsearcher.cgi?search_string=eichelberger+leach+same-sex+marriage
Unfortunately, WHYY doesn't provide a direct link, so you have to build one yourself... or just copy and paste mine! :)
Posted by Gabe Small on 06/26/2009 @ 03:10AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
OK, Ellen, how about this:
DOMA is now before the Supreme Court as its argument against two same-sex individuals marrying.
Remember Loving vs. Virginia? The case allowing interracial marriage?
If DOMA is found to be constitutional, then Loving can be reversed, as it can be proven that the Founders never intended for people of different races to marry.
However, the Constitution is a living document, meaning that its interpretations change as society changes.
You may not agree with gay marriage, but trust me, the arguments used in Loving are IDENTICAL to the government's arguments in this case/
How would you feel if YOU couldn't marry who you love??
Posted by Dale Masters on 06/27/2009 @ 09:05PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
No, Marty.
Having "this equal right" gives us over 1,000 OTHER rights which, not being able to marry, we do not have access to.
Posted by Dale Masters on 06/27/2009 @ 09:11PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Love is about caring and sharing in the good times and in the bad times. Marriage is a deep commitment to another person, which also has protections under the law. I have seen gay couples who are deeply committed to each other, who share the same household and have quality lifestyles. There relationship is respected by everyone: family, friends, and work associates. Just as my relationship with my wonderful husband. I think gay couples, who are so committed to each other, deserve the celebration and legal protection under the law that marriage provides. I think our world should promote legal marriages for gay couples, because it is healthier for everyone (gay or heterosexual) to have committed partners with the recognition and legal protection that marriage provides.
Posted by Claudette Engblom-Bra... on 06/29/2009 @ 10:18AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
I have lived with my partner for 7 and half years. We are committed to each other and share every moment together. As you said giving equal rights to LGBTs won't reduce anything that the world is having.
I really really appreciate your thoughts, especially from straights. I always believe the people who are happy and strong and open-minded won't be scared of giving rights that will never be decreased to others who don't have.
Again thank you, thank you, thank you!
Posted by Peter Tantakarn on 06/29/2009 @ 03:22PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
That was a very interesting debate. The anti-SSM senator was pretty much backed into a corner. The only problem with the pro-equality senator was that he incorrectly said 27 countries legalized same-sex marriage.
Anyway, this was a wonderful debate. Thanks for recording this!
Posted by Edmund Xu on 07/21/2009 @ 12:45PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.