The idea was to bring together supporters of gay marriage and some more conservative-minded Chicagoans in one room to have a conversation about gay rights in the U.S.
Typically, it’s not an issue where people generally say “whatever you want to do is fine with me.”
The resulting hourlong RedEye Roundtable exposed the complexity of a debate that doesn’t just boil down to the question of whether two men or two women should be allowed to marry.
The discussion touched on every facet of society–from gender, race and religion to arguments about the principles of the Founding Fathers and the purpose of families.
So we waded in slowly, asked the 11 participants to respect the others at the table and tossed out the first question: “Should gay marriage be allowed in the U.S.?”
Patrick and Eric got the conversation started, detailing some of the hoops they had to jump through to protect their relationship, but Angel responded with a different perspective.
Patrick: We bought a condo this year, something that seems uneventful for most people. But when you’re a gay or lesbian couple, things that would automatically be assumed in the law all the way through the buying process, the legal process, you have to step back and take another look.
Angel: When we give the right to gay marriage we give the right to expand marriage. Then the argument is: What happens after that?
If you give one person the right to break out of the traditional norm, then the argument would be how would you legally stop polygamy or group marriage. And I think that’s a very important legal issue and it could start a slippery slope.
Eric: I think that concern is well-founded. Coming from a Republican viewpoint, I would argue that I wouldn’t want to see a court to declare that I had the right to be married. I would rather see a legislature vote to do that because it would represent, hopefully, a majority opinion in this country.
They would totally retain power to regulate polygamy, things like that, which totally don’t fall under my viewpoint. That is not marriage to me.
In the name of God
The definition of marriage was a big sticking point. Those in the group who oppose gay marriage kept referring to the dictionary definitions of marriage: a union between a man and a woman.
Those in favor of gay marriage argued that the country can’t be held to definitions established centuries ago, pointing to changes made to respond to an evolving society, such as in the area of civil rights for African-Americans and women.
And then there was religion, a topic that isn’t easily separated from the debate about gay marriage.
Ben: I hear a lot of talk about the separation of church and state and how too much spirituality is used to determine political beliefs. For me personally, my political beliefs are based on (my spiritual beliefs) and that’s the way it is for a lot of people in America, and those people are speaking.
Patrick: I’m a Christian, Eric’s a Christian. There are many Christians that support our relationship, that have commitment ceremonies, that bless it.
This weekend I was at the Market Days street festival, and there was a booth from open and affirming churches, which are literally many, many churches on the North Side of Chicago that openly welcome gays and lesbians to their congregation.
Ben: To myself and to other Christians, morality in this country is important. I, and other people, believe that the direction of this country is guided by God.
And if God sees our country as going down the path of unrighteousness and immorality, then he’s going to stop blessing our country.
Alicia: Some are religious, some are not religious, and everyone makes decisions based on their own system belief, but we cannot start legislating religiously because there are just way too many (religions).
Janice: I’m just asking people not to try to subordinate who I am as a human being, a person who pays taxes, who respects other people, who believes in what I think are good moral beliefs.
Don’t try to subordinate me because of how I look or what’s going on in my household.
Ben: You pushing your beliefs on me is not letting my humanity come out … you’re basically telling me my beliefs–that homosexuality is immoral–are immoral.
Craig: I have not once at this table said anything about my moral beliefs about homosexuality. I just don’t want this agenda being used as a battering ram against religious belief.
That is what I’m absolutely terrified of, and I’m terrified that traditional Christians, traditional Muslims, traditional Jews are not going to be able to run schools, that the government some day is going to say: “You have to marry these people even if it’s against your religious beliefs.”
Annie: The foundation of this country is based on Christian principles. And the basic principle of our rights, the whole idea is that we have laws and regulations and rules.
The purpose of law is to protect its citizens, it’s not so that you can do whatever you want, whenever you want to.
Eric: Marriage laws as they exist don’t protect me.
Annie: Protect you from what? You have every right as any other citizen in the United States of America.
Eric: But they don’t protect me in my relationship.
The family factor
Stripped down to the barest elements, the basic point on both sides seemed to be the same: Don’t force your beliefs on me.
For gay and lesbian activists, that meant that religious edicts held to by some Americans should not dictate the laws for all Americans.
For the more conservative participants, that meant don’t push your lifestyle on me and restrict my right to religious freedom.
Other commonly held reasons for and against gay marriage were also debated, such as why some Americans see gay marriage as a threat to families and why some don’t see why gays need the right to marry.
Alicia: We also need to look at the reality of families. This is not “Leave it to Beaver” time anymore. It’s not Mom, Dad and kids in all situations. There are grandparents raising kids. There are people who are infertile. Should they not be allowed to get married?
Annie: I’m coming from a Natural Law perspective. If we look at that, it’s very clear that there’s a reason homosexual marriage is not a marriage, or a homosexual union cannot be a marriage because marriage by definition is unitive and procreative.
Two women cannot technically have sex. Two men cannot technically have sex because the parts don’t fit together. If you look up sexual intercourse it says when the penis enters the vagina.
Marriage and family really is the foundation for our society. … It’s what society is built upon. That would be the objection to gay people getting married.
Russell: As far as procreation, there are 200,000 kids in DCFS alone that need homes. That’s what heterosexuals are doing. They’re procreating, and they’re not taking care of these children properly.
And if God wants to take two of the same sex and make an example of what partnership is really about, I say that’s fine.
A heated exchange
While our panel was respectful of one another, there were some raised voices, interruptions and sighs as comments were made. As much of the country is finding, it’s an issue that’s difficult to discuss because either side can take the words of the opposite camp as an assault on their way of life.
For example, Alex said he saw some hints of homophobia in some of the viewpoints being expressed at the table, prompting the following exchange:
Annie: I was just a little offended by Alex’s statement. There’s this attack like we’re the religious right or extremists who think you should all burn in hell or something.
I just feel very disturbed and very hurt that that’s the opinion that you have. Never once have I said that.
We’re all entitled to have our own beliefs. To say that is disconcerting. I come from a Christian background, and my role and my life is like what you said Eric. It’s to love. I love everyone here no matter what your background is, no matter what your sexual orientation is.
Alex: I wasn’t trying to make a statement about your personal beliefs. I was thinking about it from a sociological aspect.
You don’t have to have these rabid, anti-gay, homophobic beliefs for your beliefs to have negative effects on queer people. Some of the beliefs that people have been espousing at the table, they’re not specifically directed at killing off all the gay people.
But those beliefs work through the institutions of this country, and they have negative effects on us.
What happens next?
As for what the future holds on this issue, panelists had some ideas about that too.
Russell: I hope there would be gay marriage, and I hope people would say if a gay couple wants to have love for each other and have it blessed by a minister, let them do that and let God be their judge.
Alex: In the long run it’s going to be more about education, talking to each other and learning more about people’s lives.
Joshua: I think eventually it will happen.
Annie: I really don’t know.
Alicia: I don’t know if gay marriage or something equivalent to it (will be legal), but I think something equal to it will eventually happen. It’s a long learning curve, and there will be a lot of baby steps before we get there.
Craig: The constitutional amendment will pass. There will be some wiggle room left for civil union laws left to be decided by the states.
Some version of the constitutional amendment (banning gay marriage) will pass in the next six years.
Janice: I would have thought that, no, it’s a long way off. But I think (President) Bush is going to do some things that are unexpected, even to him, that will open the door to make it happen sooner than later.
Eric: I think in the long run we probably will establish gay marriage.
Patrick: I believe that someday there will be gay marriage.
Angel: I think the people of America are going to talk to their legislature, and the amendment will pass. I don’t see gay marriage in the future.
———-
Talk back
What do you think about gay marriages?
E-mail us at ritaredeye@tribune.com.
