Addressing a controversial topic, National Freedom to Marry Day was recognized at Penn with events designed to bring awareness to the issue of same-sex marriage.
The "Civil Right or Moral Wrong: A Non-Biased Debate on the Topic of Same-Sex Marriage" forum was held in Logan Hall yesterday night with over 100 attendees.
"I felt really invigorated and kind of upset by some of the stuff that was said, but also kind of inspired by the other panelists and the comments that they made," College freshman Anika Hedberg said. "I thought that it was a relatively fair discussion, and I enjoyed myself."
Allies, the Robert A. Fox Leadership Program and Penn Forum sponsored the four-panelist discussion. American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania Legislative Director Larry Frankel and Political Science professor Rogers Smith spoke in favor of same-sex marriage, while Family Research Council Director of the Center for Marriage and Family Studies Peter Sprigg and Urban Family Council founder Bill Devlin spoke in opposition to it.
The debate moderator, Legal Studies lecturer Deborah Weinstein, began by highlighting the recent national attention on the topic of same-sex marriage.
Smith started the debate by saying, "I think it would be best if this controversial issue was resolved not by a court-imposed solution, but by the development of democratic consensus in our society, legislating rights to same-sex marriage."
Devlin spoke next, countering Smith's argument by pointing out the current problems that already exist with marriage.
"Heterosexuals have destroyed marriage for over a century through divorce, through domestic violence and now in the epidemic [decrease in the number of marriages], particularly in rural and urban America," Devlin said. "Heterosexuals have literally redefined and destroyed marriage. ... Also, through cohabitation, marriage has been redefined."
He continued by relaying his childhood experience of being raised by an alcoholic mother and father before being orphaned at the age of 15.
"I do not think that marriage should be redefined once again," he said, explaining his stance against same-sex marriage.
Frankel took to the podium next by personalizing the issue of same-sex marriage.
"I have an almost-perfect marriage. Last fall, I married my partner -- we have been together for 25 years -- and we had a wedding." He added that he felt the major question in the debate is, "Are we going to allow people to have that commitment [of marriage] regardless of gender?"
Sprigg concluded the opening part of the debate with his assessment of marriage as a public institution that should be defined by law, not for the capability to produce offspring and not in terms of one's love and commitment to another.
The debate continued with the panelists elaborating on their points and fielding questions and commentary from audience members.
College senior Matthew Kalamar responded to the issue of same-sex marriage being immoral based on Christian values with a comment during the question-and-answer session.
"It's understood that America was founded by people who were coming from a Judeo-Christian tradition, but in the past 200 years, we've evolved into a pluralistic society that guarantees not only freedom to choose a religion, but [the freedom to choose] no religion, and that's guaranteed in the Constitution," Kalamar argued. "Since that's the case, how can it be justified that all laws should be based on a Judeo-Christian tradition?"
Allies member and College senior Chris Kawasaki said that he felt this is an issue of national importance as well as local importance.
"Penn students aren't going to get married now, but for what [this right] represents, being an LGBT individual, is being able to know that you have the same rights, that you can get married and have the same benefits as your straight classmates," Kawasaki said. Marriage "means a lot to you, not only in future perspective, but presently, psychologically."
