Marriage Debate: Students weigh in at SGA-sponsored forum

Students got the chance Tuesday to weigh in on the controversial marriage amendment, which will appear before voters Nov. 7. With assistance from the College of Humanities and Sciences, the Student Government Association sponsored a debate team-style discussion at the Richmond Salons in the University Student Commons, during which two students argued for the constitutional amendment and two argued against it.

Lee Mitchell, a senior political science major, and Peter Kamakawiwoole, a junior government major from Patrick Henry College in Purcellville, made the case why Virginians should support the proposed amendment. Nichole Faina, a senior political science major, and Katy Bush, a senior mass communications major, countered their arguments.

Timothy Hulsey, associate professor of psychology and dean of the Honors College, moderated the event, making sure to cut short the students when they surpassed their time limits to questions and rebuttals. Before the debate began, Hulsey read the three-sentence amendment and explained current marriage laws, citing all of his information from the Virginia Board of Elections Web site. According to the site, the amendment seeks to define marriage in the Virginia Constitution.

“The reason this amendment is so vital to ordinary Virginians is because we are at a crossroads in our society,” Mitchell said during his team’s opening statements. “Today across this country, secular-progressives are using an unelected body to pursue their agenda over the rule of the majority of Americans.”

Mitchell said most Americans do not want so-called activist judges to redefine marriage between a man and woman because it represents 5,000 years of cross-cultural tradition. Even residents in so-called blue, or liberal, states do want this, he said, citing the passage of same-sex marriage prohibitions in Oregon and Michigan.

While Mitchell focused on the past and its traditions, Faina, an intern with the anti-amendment Commonwealth Coalition, spoke about a hypothetical future in which the marriage amendment is part of the constitution. She said its vague wording – specifically in the second paragraph – could serve as a basis to deprive property rights and hospital visitations, among other things, from all unmarried couples.

After introductory statements, Hulsey asked several prepared questions, which had less to do with the technicalities of the amendment than they did with broader issues, such as the definition of marriage and the role of religion in legislation.

Mitchell said as long as citizens will it, religion should play prominently in politics. He warned against a society in which citizens cannot integrate their public and private lives, calling it a “recipe for disaster.”

Kamakawiwoole, a member of the PHC-based organization, Students for Marriage, elaborated, saying, “To ask anyone, a citizen or a legislator, to compartmentalize a part of who they are would be like asking me as a student to compartmentalize what I learn.”

Faina objected to religious influence on legislation.

“Religious beliefs are not uniform. Favoring one belief system will always be to the detriment of others,” she said.

Other topics the teams debated included other forms of marriage, such as polygamous marriage.

Like many amendment supporters, Mitchell said same-sex marriage is just a starting point in sanctioning other types of marriage, including polygamous marriage, marriage based on incest and marriage between consenting minors and adults.

He used a word amendment opponents have talked about frequently – equality – and tried to turn it against them.

“When we redefine marriage based on equality, equality means for all, so we have to allow all these different ideas,” Mitchell said.

Faina and Bush rejected Mitchell’s suggestion. Faina distinguished polygamy from other civil unions because the former has always been a religious practice, she said. She said that she and other amendment opponents would never endorse it because it has so often reduced women to inferior familial and societal roles.

Toward the end of the debate, when Hulsey gave the teams the opportunity to ask each other questions, Mitchell furthered the discussion about other forms of partnerships, asking, “Where do you draw the line? If you allow equality based on same sex, do you stop the equality there?”

“You allow two consenting adults, which means someone who’s 18 or older and who’s consenting to marry,” Bush answered. “That’s where you draw the line.”

A question handed in on a slip of paper from the audience addressed what many say poses a conundrum to the entire marriage debate: the rising rate of divorce.

Mitchell and Kamakawiwoole recognized divorce as a problem but said it should not be a variable in the marriage debate.

“The fact that the sanctity of marriage has already been harmed doesn’t mean it can’t be harmed anymore,” Kamakawiwoole said, referring to same-sex marriage.

Faina countered, saying same-sex marriage has no effect on the sanctity of marriage. Marriage has declined without the occurrence of same-sex marriage, she said.

The U.S. Census Bureau reported in its 2005 American Community Survey that 49.8 percent of households, or slightly more than 55.2 million, include married couples, compared to 50.2 percent, or 55.8 million, that do not.

In closing, Faina reiterated her concern about the amendment’s implications on civil rights.

“The constitution is written to protect our rights,” she said. “It’s ridiculous to write discrimination into that.”

Kamakawiwoole said several times during his closing remarks that the amendment will have no noticeable impact on Virginians’ lives if passed.

“Nothing in current law changes. No new restrictions come into play. Nothing changes from a legal perspective,” he said.

Kamakawiwoole differentiated marriage amendment supporters and opponents but conceded some common ground.

“It’s not that we disagree on the importance of marriage; we disagree where to draw the lines,” he said. “This amendment is an opportunity for us to draw those lines.”

Nick Timpe, state director for Students for Marriage and a PHC junior government major, came to support fellow PHC student Kamakawiwoole. He said both sides argued well, and Hulsey was an even-handed moderator. He said the opposition, however, failed to convince him of some of their claims.

“They weren’t really able to prove the point that people’s rights would be taken away,” he said.

Raphaella Teschner, a senior psychology major, was another attendee who, like Timpe, had already decided before the debate how she will vote on Election Day. She said she plans to vote “no” on Ballot Question No. 1.

Teschner said the team supporting the amendment did not sway her viewpoints, but the debaters’ arguments did raise some important points.

“They clarified the amendment and how fickle its interpretation is. You can interpret it many different ways,” she said.

Interpretability, she added, makes it difficult to see what the amendment is really all about.

“This is a human rights issue,” Teschner said.