One week after students deliberated the proposed constitutional marriage amendment at a Student Government Association-sponsored forum, VCU held Tuesday another amendment discussion in the Commons Theater.
Organized by the VCU Equity and Diversity Committee and the student Society of Professional Journalists chapter, the discussion featured the Virginia House of Delegates author of the amendment, Republican Delegate Robert G. Marshall of Manassas, and another amendment supporter, Pat McSweeney, an attorney and adjunct professor of political science at VCU. Claire Guthrie Gastanaga, the campaign manager for the Commonwealth Coalition, spoke against the amendment, while Geoff Dankert, vice president of broadcast for the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association, asserted his neutrality as a journalist.
“This is not a debate; this is a forum,” Paula Otto, the forum’s moderator and associate director of the School of Mass Communications, told a packed crowd of students, faculty and local residents. “Our goal is to inform and educate the audience about Ballot Question No. 1.”
In keeping with a forum, Otto refused the speakers opportunities to respond to the other speakers, although on many occasions they tried to. After each speaker introduced him or herself, Otto read a series of questions prepared by journalism students and then gave audience members the chance to ask questions.
Marshall and McSweeney articulated their positions on the marriage amendment first. Speaking in mostly legal jargon, Marshall explained that his inspiration to author the amendment came from Lawrence v. Texas, a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the justices struck down the criminal prohibition of homosexual sodomy in Texas.
While Marshall spoke, a man in one of the lower rows of the theater stood and turned his back to Marshall. He sat down when Marshall finished and McSweeney introduced himself.
“Does the government have a role in regulating sexual conduct in relationships?” McSweeney asked. He did not explicitly answer that question but continued, “Marriage is beyond simple contract. The government’s role is to restrict parties, not simply to bless what they voluntarily decide to enter into or get out of or to bless whatever terms they happen to come up with.”
Over millennia, McSweeney added, the “appropriate” role of government has been to regulate marriage-not to interfere with individuals’ relationships but to preserve society and stability.
Gastanaga straightforwardly expressed her dissent.
“This amendment is unnecessary, it is undemocratic, and it is unpredictable and ill-conceived,” she said.
It is unnecessary, she said, because marriage has been defined in Virginia since 1975, when the General Assembly passed a statute prohibiting same-sex marriage. She said the amendment is undemocratic because it takes away the right of future generations to decide how they want to legally define marriage and other partnerships.
Gastanaga warned attendants that the amendment could lead to unmarried couples losing protective orders and other domestic violence safeguards because the commonwealth would not recognize any union but marriage under the amendment.
“The guys who dismissed the domestic violence arguments as absurd in Ohio are the ones who filed an amicus brief in the Ohio Supreme Court, saying the plain language of the Ohio amendment clearly means that unmarried domestic violence victims in Ohio should not be given the right to be protected by the domestic violence laws,” Gastanaga said.
While the amendment supporters and opponent spent most of their time dismissing one another, Dankert offered a completely different perspective on the amendment. He said he has studied more than two dozen news articles and television clips on the amendment and found that while media coverage has been “fairly down the middle,” many journalists have missed opportunities to go beyond stereotypes or generalizations of both sides of the debate.
Attendants shouted “No!” in near unison.
He cited several examples of inadequate reporting, such as an article he read in The Daily News Record of Harrisonburg, which barely mentioned a lesbian couple that protested an otherwise pro-amendment rally, he said. On the other hand, he cited another article about an anti-amendment forum in Lynchburg sponsored by the American Association of University Women, which failed to mention any presence of amendment support at the event.
Dankert said his organization, the Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association, fosters fair coverage of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender issues in the media. But he stressed that is it not a political or activist organization, and it does not take stands on policy issues.
Although the forum stayed within the parameters Otto set for it, discussion did often get heated, especially when the audience members were allowed to ask questions and make comments.
Elizabeth Cramer, an associate professor in the School of Social Work, called out Marshall for his repeated usage of the term “homosexual,” saying the preferred language is “gay” or “lesbian.”
“The term ‘gay’ and ‘lesbian’ are rhetorical terms, which intend to gain a favorable status or publicity or hearing, and I’m using a neutral term,” Marshall responded. “But if I’m not allowed to use that in a public forum, who is not tolerating whom at this point? Are speech police to come here and administrate you can’t use a neutral term?”
He went on to make a reference to the Old Testament, to which the audience responded with boos, laughter and snide comments.
“Are you going to be quiet?” Marshall asked the audience.
Attendants shouted “No!” in near unison.
In an effort to provide clarity, Dankert read the usage guideline of the term “gay” in the Associated Press Stylebook, calling the book the “bible for print reporters.”
The entry says “gay” is “used to describe men and women attracted to the same sex, though lesbian is the more common term for women. Preferred over homosexual except in clinical contexts or references to sexual activity.”
Marshall also elicited noise from the audience when he talked about his views on marriage and family.
“If there’s anything more fundamental to the human existence than the human family – marriage – I don’t know what it is, and I don’t think anybody can demonstrate anything more fundamental,” he said. “You all were here because there was some union at some point between a man and woman.”
Gastanaga mostly avoided ideology, instead concentrating on the marriage amendment and its potential ramifications.
“All it takes is common sense to see that this amendment is legal nonsense,” she said in her final remarks. “All it takes is common sense to recognize that if you can’t figure out on your own without an explanation what something means, it probably doesn’t belong in our constitution.
“I hope that when I wake up on November 8th that Virginia will have made the right kind of history as we approach the eve of the 400th anniversary and celebration of the settlement and initiation of our democracy,” Gastanaga said to a round of applause.
Susan Scott of Richmond said she intends to vote “no” for the “right kind of history” Gastanaga talked about. Exiting the forum, she said the discussion made her more firmly convinced to vote “no” Nov. 7.
“I think it is a blatant travesty on the Bill of Rights in the constitution of Virginia,” Scott said of the amendment.
Katherine Hemminger, a junior women’s studies and psychology double major, agreed. She said people are more concerned with labeling relationships than looking at the quality of them.
Hemminger said attendants would have gotten more out of the forum if it were a debate.
“They should have been allowed to respond because I think the discussion is the most important part of it,” said Hemminger, who plans to volunteer with the Commonwealth Coalition in the days before Nov. 7.
When asked what outcome she predicts for Ballot Question No. 1, Scott said laughing, “It’s called prayers.”