KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY | THE SENTINEL
APRIL 23, 2013
SNEAK PEEK
VOL. 48 ISSUE 26 | SINCE 1966
WOMEN’S GOLF PLACES SECOND
IN A-SUN Story Starts On Page 6
Story Starts On Page 10
Story Starts On Page 16
Demonstrators gather in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on March 27, 2013, as the court hears arguments concerning the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.
SUPREME COURT HEARS CASES CONCERNING SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Shaddi Abusaid News Editor On March 26 and 27, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for cases concerning the constitutionality of same-sex marriage. Proponents argue that gay marriage is a constitutional right and same-sex couples should be afforded the same federal and state benefits as other married couples. Opponents of same-sex marriage argue that marriage, by definition, is between a man and a woman and therefore gay marriages should not be recognized and same-sex couples should not be given the same marriage benefits as heterosexual partners. Russell Matherly, a freshman Musical Theatre major, opposes gay marriage. “I have grown up as a Christian,” Matherly said. “I understand that homosexuality in and of itself is wrong. It’s a sin.” Kim Riggins, a senior Communication major, says same-sex marriage is a civil right. “I don’t think that anybody has the right to dictate who you can get married to and who you can’t,” Riggins said, “especially if their reason for doing so is based on a religious belief. That’s a direct violation of the First Amendment.” Political Science professor
Kenneth White agrees that same-sex marriage is a First Amendment issue. “As I see it, marriage is about friendship,” White said. “We marry our best friend. The government cannot pick our best friend for us; we get to choose our best friend and whether to marry him or her.” In late March, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments concerning both the Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, and Proposition 8. The Defense of Marriage Act was signed into law by President Clinton in September 1996. It restricts federal marriage benefits and federal recognition of same-sex marriages. DOMA defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman for federal tax purposes, refusing to recognize the marital status of same-sex couples that were married in states that permit gay marriage. The bill also gives individual states the right to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages that were performed in another state. The constitutionality of Section Three of DOMA is what is currently being challenged in the Supreme Court. Section Three of the bill permits only couples in opposite-sex marriages to receive federal marriage benefits. These benefits include tax breaks for
married couples, spousal and survival Social Security benefits, hospital visitation rights and pensions received from working as a government employee. Jessica Bull, the program coordinator for KSU’s GLBTIQ Student Retention Services, said the issue concerning DOMA is whether the federal government should recognize the legal marriages of another state. “Some justices on the Supreme Court look at this as a federalism issue,” Bull said. “Marriage has always been left up to the states. The question here is [whether] the federal government is overstepping their bounds by making a legal definition of marriage.” The other case brought before the Supreme Court concerns the legality of California’s Proposition 8, a referendum placed on the state’s 2008 election ballot in which California voters overturned the state Supreme Court’s ruling that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. The referendum resulted in a ban on same-sex marriage in California. Same-sex couples married before the law was reversed were grandfathered in and allowed to stay married and receive full benefits but no other same-sex couples have been allowed to marry in the
state since. “There’s a good possibility that both cases will actually just get thrown out,” Bull said. “If that doesn’t happen, they can make a ruling that is specific to California and say ‘you can’t take away rights that were already given and agree with the lower court.’” Bull also said another possible outcome could be that the court rules that states cannot offer same-sex couples anything less than marriage. This ruling would require states that offer civil unions and domestic partnerships to offer full marriage to gay couples. Heather Patterson, a sophomore Psychology major and a veteran of the war in Afghanistan, thinks gay marriage should be legalized. “It should absolutely be legal,” Patterson said. “It has no effect on me as a ‘straight’ person. It’s ridiculous that people who love each other can’t get married and get benefits. When I was married, that automatically entitled my husband to a huge number of rights. If I had died in Afghanistan he got my flag.” Riggins said she thinks gay marriage will be legalized in the near future as the younger generation grows older and takes charge of the country. “That’s how it usually works, unfortunately,” Riggins said. “A good many citizens in this
country will have to wait for full recognized civil rights. In 2013, it’s kind of ridiculous.” Despite his opposition to same-sex marriage, Matherly said he also believes gay marriage will be legalized sometime in his lifetime. “If you were to ask my grandmother her views on it, she would say ‘Oh, there’s no way this would ever become legalized,’” Matherly said. “It’s almost like a completely different world nowadays.” Photos courtesy of MCT Campus