In light of the recent battle over the legalities of same-sex marriages, a panel of political science and law professors discussed myths, interpretations, history and legal aspects of the controversy during a symposium Thursday evening.
The presentation, entitled “Perfect Unions? The Politics and Law of Same-Sex Marriage,” featured political science Associate Professor Scott Barclay from the State University of New York­Albany, New School for Social Research political science doctoral student Priscilla Yamin, University political science Associate Professor Julie Novkov and University law Professor Dom Vetri.
Each panelist touched on different aspects of the gay marriage debate.
Barclay identified several “myths” about the issue of same-sex marriage, such as that many state governments have always been hostile toward same-sex marriage and that legal action surrounding the controversy is a recent occurrence.
“This issue is neither new, nor is it likely to disappear soon,” Barclay said.
Yamin spoke about different interpretations of marriage. She said marriage has been viewed both as an institution for the good of society and for the welfare of private citizens. Yamin also gave historical examples of
instances when marriage was restricted for other groups, such as slaves and women who married foreign nationals.
“Marriage has been both an enabling and a restraining process,” she said.

Novkov analyzed the history of anti-interracial relationship sentiment in the United States, comparing and contrasting it with the denial of marriage to same-sex couples. She said the two issues are similar because they relate to society’s “fundamental” idea of the family as central to producing offspring. Marriage has been used to uphold this social idea by restricting who can marry, keeping “subdominant groups” from gaining the status of “dominant groups,” she said.
Vetri addressed the cases for and against gay marriage. He said the case for same-sex marriage is humanitarian and legal.
“Marriage is sort of the fundamental institutional concept we have created where people can demonstrate caring and loving of another human being in a very personal way,” he said.
He said the denial of marriage to gay couples is discriminatory.
“It’s essentially to dehumanize gay and lesbian couples as not capable of making caring and loving relationships,” he said.
Vetri also said opponents don’t have valid reasons for opposing gay marriage, noting that opponents use arguments such as that same-sex couples may not be as good of parents as heterosexual couples.
Speaking on the recent decision by Oregon Circuit Court Judge Frank Bearden to validate previously issued Multnomah County licenses but to halt further licenses until new marriage law is drafted by the Oregon Legislature, Vetri said higher courts will likely decide the issue after an appeal in the case.
Vetri also said civil unions are not adequate to protect marriage.
“It’s more than a word, it’s stigmatization,” he said. “There’s absolutely no reason for not giving the label (of marriage).”
Political science graduate student Courtney Smith said she attended the event educate herself about people’s opinions on gay marriage. She said she was intrigued by the correlation the presenters drew between denying marriage to same-sex couples and old anti-miscegination laws, or laws prohibiting interracial marriages.
“I want them to continue issuing licenses, but it does make sense to make sure they are as valid as possible (before issuing them again),” she said.
Smith agreed with Vetri that civil unions do not offer as many rights as marriage.
“I’d prefer people to have equal rights across the board,” she said.
Senior political science student Kyle Smith said he attended the event for a class and because same-sex marriage is an important subject.
“I have interest (in the issue) because marriage is going to affect a lot of us,” he said.
He added that he favors a constitutional amendment to settle the controversy.
Junior Dean Scrutton said the panel should have represented opinions against gay marriage as well, adding that the panel only gave different aspects from the same side of the argument.
“My objection is that Professor Novkov mentioned that she thought there was diversity of opinion (on the panel),” Scrutton said. “I would completely disagree with that.”
Scrutton said students on campus are split about same-sex marriage, and there needs to be a debate about the issue.
“Let’s have an open discussion so people can make up their minds, rather than having impressionable students and only one side,” Scrutton said.
But Novkov said the panel offered four very different perspectives on the issue; however, she also said there might be merit to having a debate as the issue continues to change.
“We are at a very interesting moment in history right now where the concept of equality and gay marriage are in dispute,” she said.