Community discusses gay marriage case

Members of the IU community are discussing yet another controversial issue after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled against a ban on same-sex marriage Tuesday. The ruling could make Massachusetts the first state in the U.S. to possibly legalize same-sex marriage. \nThe debate over the morality and constitutionality of same-sex marriages is becoming more heated after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down anti-sodomy laws in June. \nGLBT Coordinator Doug Bauder said while he would call the Massachusetts ruling a "triumph" for gay couples, he has reservations about the timing of the decision. \n"I have some concerns about it," Bauder said. "I have concern that they're putting the cart before the horse."\nBauder said he would have liked the gay community to make more progress in other areas, like the proposed Employment Non-Discrimination Act or civil unions, before pursuing a same-sex marriage law. \n"I think it's an important issue, but there's so much emotional baggage to it that we're not going to have informed dialogue," he said. "I have this sense that marriage is such a cultural time bomb that, at this point in time, it's going to set us back."\nBauder said he celebrates the gay community's accomplishment, but he's more concerned about the backlash and thinks it will be more of a "headache" than they need. Bauder added that his opinions in no way reflect those of the entire GLBT community.\n"There are mixed opinions on this issue within the gay community," he said.\nThe court's 4-3 decision gives the Massachusetts state legislature 180 days to change the existing law.\nIU Law Professor Daniel Conkle said it is somewhat of a mystery as to why the court gave them this time period when the legislature has no leeway. However, he said, there are ways for the law-makers to "get around it."\nConkle said one option is to create a piece of legislation that legalizes civil unions instead of "full-fledged gay marriage." This way, he said, if the law goes back to the high court, any one of the four justices in the majority might decide civil unions are adequate.\nHe also noted the legislature could pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, an action the state's governor, Mitt Romney, vowed to pursue Wednesday. Conkle noted that if the legislature has no response by the time the 180-day period is up, the court would simply have to declare the state could no longer deny marriage licenses to gay couples. \nConkle said gay marriage will likely be an issue in the 2004 presidential election. More importantly, he said, the decision has increased the likelihood of Congress passing a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.\nBut some people see the court's decision in a more positive light.\nSenior Khyla Barnes said she feels the decision is past overdue. Barnes said as the Civil Rights era overcame their obstacles through legislation, the "gay rights" era will as well.\n"This is a victory for the GLBT community because there are a lot of long-term couples who can reap the benefits like any other couple," she said.\nHowever, Barnes said, legal and monetary benefits are not "what it's all about."\n"You don't marry because you want benefits," she said. " You marry because you've created a life together."\nBarnes said she doesn't predict much of an increase in gay couples moving to Massachusetts, especially if they have roots in their home city or state.\n"But if it means that much to them, and they are willing to take advantage of it, it's up to them," she said.\nThere are also many who disagree with the court's ruling. Barnes said she believes conservative America, including some Republicans and right-leaning groups, will be incensed by the ruling.\n"People who aren't susceptible to change, like homophobics and racists, will be angered," she said.\nHowever, senior Amanda Lennen, who opposes gay marriage, said it's not about "hating people." Lennen said she is sometimes afraid to express her opinion about gay marriage at IU because she feels people would view her as closeminded or judgmental.\n"By not allowing me to express my opinions, they are the ones who are judgmental," she said. "It's hard to be conservative on this campus."\nLennen said she believes the court's ruling hurts the "sanctity of marriage," which, she said, should be defined as a union between a man and a woman. Lennen attributes her opinions to her understanding of the Bible.\nBauder said keeping something the same for the sake of tradition doesn't mean it's right.\n"We make changes all the time in our society based on new understanding," he said. \nAs for the future, Conkle said he does not believe the Massachusetts ruling will have a domino effect on the rest of the United States. He said while the decision is highly publicized and may provide a relative precedence for other courts that are inclined to go in the same direction, the independence of state sovereignty will remain key.\n-- Contact Nation & World Editor Christina Galoozis at cgaloozi@indiana.edu.