ARTICLES

Ambiguous at Best

San Francisco Panel Addresses Homosexual Marriage

BY JOHN HERREID

In the years following the American Psychiatric Association's 1973 decision to remove homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the public support for those who identify themselves as homosexual has grown. But there is still a substantial gap between those who are in positions that shape public opinion and the public who declare that opinion. Recent polls show that the number of people who oppose homosexual behavior has fallen, but that, at the same time, many who profess tolerance also declare "personal opposition" to homosexual behavior. They just aren't willing to enforce that opposition in public policy. But, furthermore, most do not wish to sanction the behavior by changing existing laws, especially when it comes to the issue of gay marriage.

San Francisco is no stranger to the debate that currently rages around the country on this issue. Despite being renowned for liberal public policies, the state of California has not as yet brought into effect a public policy that supports official and legal marriages for homosexuals. This has been left to states such as Massachusetts and Vermont, both of which had state supreme court rulings that declared that the traditional definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman is discriminatory.

It was on this issue -- marriage, its definition and its future -- that a panel met for the redefining of marriage. Consisting of Matt Coles of the ACLU, Dr. Christopher Carrington, Ph.D. of San Francisco State University, and Karen England of the Capitol Resource Institute, the panel was moderated by John Diaz, the editorial page editor of the San Francisco Chronicle.

An audience of mostly gays and lesbians attended, many passionately vociferous in their support for the redefining of marriage. Many were couples, one man making the point of informing the panel that he and his lover had been in a relationship for over twenty years.

The panel opened its discussion with Karen England stating her support for keeping the traditional definition of marriage. Changing this, she warned, "opens a Pandora's box" that could lead to legalization of polygamy and other currently prohibited practices. Matt Coles accused her of attempting to stifle the civil rights of homosexuals, saying that there is "no more basic human impulse" than to want to marry the one you love. "I don't think we should base public policy on human impulse," England replied.

Christopher Carrington weighed in with his opinion that marriage is by nature an environment that fosters spousal abuse, whether it is hetero- or homosexual marriage. Based on his research, the attitude of the gay and lesbian community towards legalization of gay marriage is "ambiguous at best." "I suffer from a case of Euro envy," he said, arguing that the European attitude towards marriage and family is the healthiest in the world, allowing the free association of couples, heterosexual or homosexual, along with adoption rights and universal healthcare for all people.

After the discussion, the moderator opened the floor for questions. Karen England rolled her eyes. "I'm sure this is going to be fun for me!" The first few questions were emotionally charged, mostly directed at England. During the question and answer period, the hostility towards England, who held the traditional position on marriage, ranged from latent to overt. The other two panelists fared better under scrutiny, though Carrington stopped short of saying he favored gay marriage, instead supporting a broader expansion of domestic partnership laws nationwide. One man asked why England would not allow laws to be passed that would allow gays to have the right to claim the body of their lovers if they were killed in an accident. She reiterated her case, emphasizing that she did not "hate" gays, but she also did not support the government giving special rights based on sexual orientation. "Heartless bitch," muttered one audience member.

The attitude towards the attendees who held the traditional position on marriage was not wholly hostile. A few conservatives came to the discussion, and there was some lively conversation both before and after the talk. One homosexual man approached and expressed gratitude to a conservative for attending and representing the opposition, though he disagreed with his position on marriage.

But, then again, the conservative opinion on same-sex marriage is far from unanimous. David Brooks of the New York Times, a well-known commentator and former National Review writer, gave what he called a "moral case for marriage, including gay marriage" in a November 25 Times opinion piece. "We shouldn't just allow gay marriage. We should insist on gay marriage," he wrote, arguing that, without the option of marriage, homosexuals have little incentive for non-promiscuous behavior. This echoes the long-held opinions of Andrew Sullivan, an independent homosexual journalist and political conservative, who argues that domestic partnership could lead to widespread litigation over who qualifies for partnership benefits. Rather than deal with those situations, he would rather that the government allow same-sex marriage. He also claims that the promiscuous behavior associated with homosexuality would decrease if gays were given the chance for marriage.

The majority of conservatives still oppose gay marriage. But will that last and, if so, how long? Unlike the legalization of abortion, the case for gay marriage has not been heard or decided on by the U.S. Supreme Court, instead being argued and legislated state by state. This makes it difficult for conservatives, traditionally champions of states' rights, to oppose the gradually-changing definition of marriage.

Here in California, many steps have been made toward the legalization of same-sex marriage. Legislation such as AB 205, which passed last year, gives to domestic partners the same rights that married couples have. This "marriage by another name" may lead to a change in the state constitution sooner or later, but when?

Karen England, when asked after the Commonwealth Club discussion, said that she agreed with President Bush's proposal for a constitutional "marriage Amendment," but it is likely that many conservatives, especially libertarian conservatives, will hold to the states' rights position. This could make the situation quite problematic.

The Catholic position is made clear by the recent Vatican document, "Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons." It says, "there are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts 'close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.'" It adds that all Catholics are to hold this position, and that "Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, in keeping with their responsibility as politicians."

But in an American Catholic environment, how to ensure that Catholics, let alone Catholic politicians, follow Church teaching on same-sex unions? With the recent turmoil in the Anglican Church over gay couples, the issue is on the religious mind, but it is almost sure to be something that will be approached in many different ways within Catholic parishes around the country. And here in California, it is sure to become a test for the faithful.

TOP