Approximately thirty Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) students, faculty and their allies crowded the LGBT center last night to hear Associate Political Science Professor Marilyn Glater discuss the recent Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) ruling regarding homosexual marriage in Massachusetts.
On Tuesday, Nov. 18, Massachusetts' highest court declared that it was unconstitutional for homosexuals to be denied the right to marriage based solely on their sexual preference.
The landmark 4-3 ruling has sparked rabid debate among groups on and off campus. The LGBT Center scheduled Glater to speak in order to help clarify the specific details regarding the SJC's decision.
Glater opened the discussion with a brief background regarding the legal process in Massachusetts. She noted that while the state has deemed a ban on homosexual marriage unconstitutional, a theoretical amendment to the federal constitution could overturn the decision.
Glater said that the SJC's ruling does not explain what agenda the other two branches of government -- the executive and the legislative -- may wish to push.
Because the legislative branch has 180 days to respond to the court's decision and agree upon a way to enforce it, its response is unclear as of now. The executive branch, however, has already announced its stance.
Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has claimed that some ambiguous wording in the SJC's ruling would allow the state to accept homosexual civil unions -- but not extend full marriage rights. "I believe a civil-union type provision would be sufficient," he said Thursday.
Glater discussed the consequences and possible implications of the court ruling. She said that the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) of 1996 could incite chaos should gay couples begin marrying in Massachusetts.
The DOMA essentially asserts that individual states within the country do not have to follow or adhere to other states' rulings regarding marriage. Complications could arise should a married gay couple in Massachusetts decide to move elsewhere.
She said that politicians -- on both the state and national level -- may try to amend constitutions in 2006 so that they explicitly define marriage solely as between a man and a woman.
Should this definition of marriage be incorporated into the federal constitution, the Massachusetts ruling would technically become illegal and would be dropped.
In her discussion, Glater described the possible chaos this could impose upon the country. She envisioned several scenarios, including a massive de-recognition of marriage certificates that would have been awarded until 2006.
During the lengthy question and answer period, students and faculty addressed many of these issues, and sought to gain more clarification from Glater.
Glater concluded the discussion by saying that "homosexual marriage is but one of a range of fairly recent human rights issues."
She added that "all of these battles -- women's rights, racial equality, etc -- are built on each other. None of them are unrelated."
Glater said it would be crucial for straight people to help further the cause of homosexual marriage, much the way men need to support women's rights.
She said the key would be changing the language of the discourse surrounding homosexual issues. Glater believes that many people do not have personal contact with homosexuals, and that they don't necessarily have accurate knowledge of LGBT issues.
As an example, Glater mentioned a recent study that showed that 42 percent of Americans believe that, contrary to scientific evidence, sexual orientation is a choice people consciously make.
More from The Tufts Daily
Trending
The Print Edition
