Opponents of same-sex marriage were dealt a blow Sept. 30 when the U.S. House of Representatives fell short of the necessary two-thirds majority vote needed to pass an amendment banning same-sex marriage.

On Friday, students will not only have the chance to hear why the amendment failed to pass, but also the history and controversy surrounding the legalization of same-sex marriage and other gay rights at a conference at 9:30 a.m. in 220 Eggers Hall, sponsored by the Sawyer Law and Politics Program at the Maxwell School of Public Affairs and Citizenship.

‘For some people, same-sex marriage is very critical,’ said Keith Bybee, an associate professor at Maxwell and organizer of the event. ‘There’s no question it’s on the list of things many people consider. Is litigation the best avenue for the advancement of gay rights? We’ll address that.’

Two speakers will be featured at the conference: one who is billed as a ‘Queer Legal Scholar,’ and the second an expert on the Massachusetts legal case that legalized same-sex marriage in the commonwealth last year.

The conference is atypical because it doesn’t feature advocates of same-sex marriage versus proponents of it. Instead, it offers multiple perspectives on how the law affects gays and lesbians.

Susan Burgess, a professor of political science at Ohio University, will present her topic: ‘Queer (Theory) Eye for the Straight (Legal) Guy: Lawrence v. Texas’ Makeover of Bowers v. Hardwick.’

Burgess uses the format of the popular television show, ‘Queer Eye for the Straight Guy,’ as a parody of the courts’ decision-making system. In the show, gay men make over a straight man by changing his appearance, clothes, and apartment; in the courts, judges go through different parts of a case and set precedents by ‘making over’ existing laws.

‘The talk is about using popular culture to explore a change in constitutional cases,’ Burgess said. ‘What can we learn from the courts? The ways we understand things in popular culture and legal culture are similar.’

The other speaker at the conference is Daniel Pinello, a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City, who will focus on a large-scale interview project he did in Massachusetts.

Pinello’s topic focuses predominantly on the current issue of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. The presentation, titled ‘Massachusetts’ Struggle Over Same-Sex Marriage,’ deals with research Pinello has accumulated over five years in interviews with prominent people who were involved in the state’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage last May.

In November 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that state attorneys failed ‘to identify any constitutionally adequate reason’ to deny lesbian and gay couples the right to marry. The ruling gave the legislature six months to rewrite state law to adapt.

The state Senate then asked the high court to determine whether the court’s constitutional concerns could be achieved by granting civil unions to gay couples. Unions, which were created in Vermont in the late 1990s, only grant the rights of state civil marriages, and do not include the name or the federal benefits of marriage, such as Social Security.

On Feb. 6, the court ruled that only full marriage rights for gay couples would be adequate for the state’s constitution. In May, Massachusetts became the first state in the United States to allow same-sex marriages.

‘It’s a fairly dramatic story,’ Pinello said about his research. ‘I spoke with interest groups, the lead attorney for the plaintiff and many others. It’s a comprehensive overview of what’s happened in Massachusetts the last five years, both politically and legally.’

On Friday, each speaker will be given about 45 minutes to present. The speakers will then take questions. Bybee’s hope is that it will spark a dialogue, as opposed to an ordinary speaker series where a professor lectures and there’s no time left for discussion.

‘I wanted to go about it in a different way,’ Bybee said. ‘I didn’t want to cram speakers in and not have time for feedback.’

Bybee also hopes the extra time at the end will spark conversations between students.

‘It’s an important issue not only for gay people, but for many others,’ Burgess said. ‘For civil rights activists and others because it’s about equal rights for gay people.’

The conference was organized seven months ago, when same-sex marriage was a hot topic. It remains an issue now because of President George Bush’s push for a constitutional amendment that would ban it. The Democratic candidate for president, John Kerry, supports civil unions, but not same-sex marriage.

It’s been especially relevant in Massachusetts, where, on Sept. 14, as many as seven primaries were decided largely on the issue of same-sex marriage, Pinello said.

For example, in Somerville, 16-year incumbent Democrat Vinnie Ciampa was defeated by 26-year-old Carl Sciortino, a gay, first-time candidate. Ciampa, a lieutenant to Massachusetts House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran, favored a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. While it wasn’t the only reason Ciampa was defeated, experts said Sciortino’s stance energized voters.

Supporters gained even more momentum last week when Finneran, who held his position for nearly 14 years, resigned. He will be replaced by Salvatore F. DiMasi, who favors same-sex marriage.

‘Thomas Finneran resigned because he saw the writing on the wall,’ said Pinello, who is writing a book, titled, ‘America’s Struggle over Same-Sex Marriage.’

The issue remains hotly contested in other states, too.

In Louisiana Tuesday, a state judge threw out a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, less then three weeks after voters had approved it. The judge ruled the amendment was flawed because it had more than one purpose: banning same-sex marriage and civil unions. An appeal from groups that oppose same-sex marriage is likely.

While opponents to same-sex marriage on campus disagree with allowing gays and lesbians the right to marry, they don’t disagree with holding the conference.

‘It’s a discussion. I would never disagree to any political or legal discussion,’ said Chris Leo, a junior member of the College Republicans who thinks each state should decide the issue through ballot votes. ‘I’m all for productive discourse, as long as it doesn’t turn ugly.’

Published on October 12, 2004 at 12:00 pm