Supporters and Opponents Debate at the Golden Gate University

( [email protected] ) Mar 11, 2004 07:13 PM EST

SAN FRANCISCO -- A debate on same-sex marriage sponsored by LEGALS (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Students at Golden Gate University), The Bar Association of San Francisco, Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom (BALiF), Golden Gate University School of Law, The Alliance Defense Fund, and the National Center for Lesbian rights was held at Golden Gate University in San Francisco, today, March 11 with hundreds of students and men and women outside of campus who are interested in the issue of same-sex marriage.

The main purpose of the debate was to explore the legal issues of homosexual marriage from the perspective of both parties -- supporters and opponents. Jeffery J. Ventrella of the Alliance Defense Fund was invited as the featured debater in support of banning same-sex marriage and Shannon Minter of the National Center for Lesbian Rights participated in the debate as the featured debater in support of same-sex marriage.

The debate began at noon with the familiar music of wedding ceremony and a question raised by the moderator Michele Anglade, vice-chairperson of the San Francisco Ethics Commission, saying how both joyous and solemn event is about to happen in America.

After the debaters made opening remarks and went on rebuttals, Anglade, the moderator asked questions specifically in regards to what each party’s stance is in terms of allowing civil unions and constitutional amendment.

The debate went on fervently as each debater actively supported his own perspective on whether or not issuance of same-sex marriage is a justifiable action.

While Minter emphasized that the issue of same-sex marriage is a matter of granting “equal rights,” Ventrella emphasized that marriage, an institution, uniting one man and one woman, is a “sure foundation of stable and noble civilization.”

Ventrella referred to advocating same-sex marriage as a “drawing square circle” that it is something impossible to do.

Ventrella said that it is important to for our children to be raised in “optimal environment” under the care of both mother and father. He said, “It’s (same-sex marriage) not benefit of anyone. Same-sex relationship cannot have children, a third party must be involved. That is a key distinction. The law teaches that what the reality wants is the structure of one man and one woman and that is the structure that we want in rearing children.”

Both Ventrella and Minter were against civil union saying that it nevertheless accepts homosexual union while failing to fulfill the desires of same-sex couples to marry.

Ventrella said, “Civil unions don’t support traditional marriage. No man serves two masters. It has the ‘separate but equal’ notion but that is a flawed notion.”

In regards to the constitutional amendment, Ventrella said it is something necessary and justifiable to do whereas Minter said it is an attack on secular institution that it should be prevented.

Ventrella said amending constitution is not about taking away other rights. He said, “Who can become president? After age 32, is that age discrimination? It’s consistent of one man and of one woman.”

As a closing statement, Ventrella once again showed his personal beliefs to why same-sex marriage should be banned.

“I still believe that to advocate same-sex marriage is to draw a square circle. We need to look at what we are doing culturally. Same-sex marriage, sexual conduct are not what we want to shrine upon our nation. There are certain things you cannot know that humanity was created under equal gender of one man and one woman. That is the optimal building block to our society. It was noble and magnificent but same-sex marriage suppresses it; it denies the obvious complementary design of one man and one woman. Reality is, I don’t believe in square circle. It can’t be justified legally and philosophically. It should be rejected.”