The debate still rages whether same-sex couples in love seeking marriage can’t have one without the other.

Members of the university community are invited to continue the same-sex marriage debate at an open discussion at 4 p.m. today in Maxwell Auditorium, following brief presentations by various students and faculty.

‘A forum sounds great, it’s what we need,’ said Chris Leo, a member of the College Republicans and sophomore history major. ‘There’s no harm in discussion.’

The idea for the discussion, sponsored by Open Doors, Pride Union and OutLaw, a gay-straight organization within the College of Law, spawned from an Open Doors meeting three weeks ago, said Gigi Meyers, co-coordinator of the event and member of OutLaw.

Organizers told the five faculty presenters they could speak for five minutes on any stance of the same-sex marriage issue, and the three student presenters could speak for three minutes each, said Charles Sprock, an adjunct professor in the College of Law.

In November, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled the denial of same-sex marriages unconstitutional, and last month President George W. Bush announced his support for an amendment prohibiting same-sex marriages.

But several state officials have defended same-sex marriages, including Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco and Mayor Jason West of New Paltz, and granted same-sex couples marriage licenses.

Both supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage have raised valid arguments, Sprock said, but questions relating to constitutional law have not been asked. In his presentation, he plans to address those questions.

‘I wanted to give some general legal analysis to the question of gay marriage, as opposed to the rhetoric offered by either side,’ Sprock said.

Immorality and church values compose much of the opponent’s rhetoric, Sprock said, but morality in terms of marriage has nothing to do with law, and the law, not churches, marries couples.

‘If your moral code tells you gay marriage is wrong, then don’t marry someone of the same sex,’ Sprock said.

Thomas Keck, an assistant professor of political science, plans to speak about the role of the courts, especially the Supreme Court. He will argue three main points. First, the gay rights movement is another example of when a group of people have gone to the courts to demand their rights, Keck said.

His second point is that both conservatives and liberals groups go to the courts, foiling the conservative argument that only liberals do so.

‘When conservatives complain of judicial activism, we should take that with a grain of salt,’ Keck said.

Keck will argue in his third point that the elected officials who support same-sex marriage, such as the mayors of San Francisco and New Paltz, add much weight to the whole debate, Keck said.

Some proponents of the amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage argue that it should be passed because the majority of Americans support it, but this argument is inaccurate, Sprock said.

‘The government was designed on checks and balances, one of them being to check that the tyranny of the majority does not infringe on the rights of the minority,’ Sprock said.

A petition in favor of same-sex marriage will circulate at the discussion, Meyers said.

‘I’m looking forward to this being a good opportunity to hear some serious discussion on this issue, not only from faculty members but students as well,’ Sprock said.

Published on March 30, 2004 at 12:00 pm