Groups Spar Over Gay Marriage

The issue of gay marriage in American politics had even the politically blue red in the face as some student groups gathered last night to debate its future.

Speakers from the Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender, and Supporters Alliance (BGLTSA) and The Harvard Democrats challenged representatives from the right-leaning The Harvard Salient and the Gospel of Life, a chapter of the Catholic Students Association, yesterday.

Organized by the Campus Political Society (CPS), which is made up of representatives from various political and policy-oriented student organizations, last night’s debate was the third in a bi-weekly series of debates geared toward bringing together students to broach controversial political topics, according to CPS member Daren F. Stanaway ’07.

Drawing nearly 200 undergraduates to Harvard Hall last night, the debate featured animated speeches and rebuttal, peppered with questions from the audience.

First to the podium, Eva Z. Lam ’10 articulated individual rights and privacy arguments in support of gay marriage, on behalf of the BGLTSA and the Dems.

“Love should be the basis for marriage,” Lam said, noting that over 600,000 same-sex couples in America cannot legalize their commitments. “It should be about the private and personal decisions of individuals, not the government definition.”

Christopher B. Lacaria ’09, a staff writer for the Salient, responded with a defense of the institutional definition of marriage.

“If you redefine marriage, there will be disastrous consequences,” Lacaria said. “It stops being a fundamental social institution and becomes sexual friendship.”

Lacaria argued that the purpose of marriage is to create life and provide a “stable, balanced” home for children—one that “gay marriage cannot provide.”

Katherine E. Smith ’10, from the BGLSTA-Dems team, challenged this definition of the role of marriage.

“If what the opposition wants is a world full of ‘Leave it to Beaver’ mommies and daddies, what will happen next? Will they take kids away from single mothers to create more ‘balanced families’?” she said.

Moderators from the Speech and Parliamentary Debate Society maintained order and kept time during the event.

“I’m just glad that this didn’t devolve into a shouting match of ‘Oh my god, I want my rights’ versus ‘Oh my god, you’re going to Hell,’” Lam said.

An audience member, Paul G. Hamm ’07, said that he appreciated the student-centric nature of the debate.

“There were no hotshot names here, and it was great to hear what students actually had to say,” Hamm said.