Same-Sex Marriage, Tolerance, and Free Speech
I am the President of the Federalist Society at Northwestern University School of Law. This past Wednesday we hosted an event on same-sex marriage at the school. Since the Federalist Society takes no position on any policy issues, and there is considerable debate within the Federalist Society on this matter, we decided to have a debate. So we invited Northwestern's own Professor Andrew M.M. Koppelman to argue for same-sex marriage. He is one of the leading gay rights scholars in the country and has debated this issue many times. I have also taken three classes from him and know him well. Though we disagree on darn near everything, he has always been intellectually honest and respectful. We developed such a good relationship that he has written recommendations for me. To argue against same-sex marriage, we invited Jeff Ventrella from the Alliance Defense Fund. Mr. Ventrella regularly debates at top schools around the country, and heads of strategic training for ADF. Part of this includes leading the Blackstone Fellowship, which I had the privilege of doing in the summer of 2004 after my first year of law school.
The debate was a great event in general, with over 120 people attending (out of a school of 800 or so). Mr. Ventrella did an excellent job presenting the legal and policy arguments for why same-sex marriage is not required under our Constitution and why it is a bad idea from a policy matter. Mr. Koppelman attempted to argue that homosexual relationships are like heterosexual relationships and should be recognized as such under our laws. His claim was a fundamentally moral claim, per his own admission.
The most interesting part of the debate occurred, however, when we opened it up to questions. As I had requested during my introduction, most of the questions were respectful and demonstrated a commitment to rigorous intellectual debate, not the mindless slogans and ad hominem attacks that often appear in public debate on the subject. The third question, however, revealed something more pernicious.
One woman rose her hand, and instead of directing the question at our panelists, she looked straight at me. She said, "I have a question for the Federalist Society. How is it that the Federalist Society could bring someone in like this from the Alliance Defense Fund. This is a hateful organization that bashes homosexuals, blah blah blah blah...Are you going to bring in white supremacists next blah blah blah?" Then half the room broke out in applause. And everyone turned and looked at me.
"First of all," I said, "as I stated in the beginning, the Federalist Society takes no position on this issue. In fact, there is disagreement among our executive board on this issue. But our goal is to provide real debate on these issues; so we invited two the best advocates from both sides. It was our idea to invite Professor Koppelman to present his perspective too." Then I started getting a bit passionate as the irritation of the question settled in. "Mr. Ventrella's position is a view shared by a huge number of people in this country. If you disagree with him, you are free to challenge him and ask questions. But if you are not interested in open and honest intellectual debate, don't come to our events!" Then the room broke out into an even louder applause then before.
After the event and in the following days, I have had many people congratulate me and say they were proud to be a part of the Federalist Society, including many who disagree with me on the marriage issue. As I reflect on Wednesday, I am still amazed that the woman had the audacity to ask that question. She was a reflection of the liberal intolerance at most institutions of higher learning. ADF is apparently so extreme, that they should not even have a chance to be heard. It should be noted that Mr. Ventrella had said nothing hateful or dismissive of homosexuals, unless you think opposing same-sex marriage automatically makes you a bigot (in which case you're wrong). Interestingly, after my comments, Professor Koppelman essentially stuck up for the Federalist Society and said that it is through rational debate that we resolve these sorts of things. Once again, I found that some of those who selectively adopt tolerance as their mantra really wish to silence those who disagree with them. Apparently it was not enough to host a debate with the pro-same-sex marriage side equally represented. The good news is, the hypocrisy of her position was recognized by most rational people at the debate. In the end, it was honest intellectual exploration of competing views that won the day, not narrow-minded censorship of those who are working to defend marriage in America.
The debate was a great event in general, with over 120 people attending (out of a school of 800 or so). Mr. Ventrella did an excellent job presenting the legal and policy arguments for why same-sex marriage is not required under our Constitution and why it is a bad idea from a policy matter. Mr. Koppelman attempted to argue that homosexual relationships are like heterosexual relationships and should be recognized as such under our laws. His claim was a fundamentally moral claim, per his own admission.
The most interesting part of the debate occurred, however, when we opened it up to questions. As I had requested during my introduction, most of the questions were respectful and demonstrated a commitment to rigorous intellectual debate, not the mindless slogans and ad hominem attacks that often appear in public debate on the subject. The third question, however, revealed something more pernicious.
One woman rose her hand, and instead of directing the question at our panelists, she looked straight at me. She said, "I have a question for the Federalist Society. How is it that the Federalist Society could bring someone in like this from the Alliance Defense Fund. This is a hateful organization that bashes homosexuals, blah blah blah blah...Are you going to bring in white supremacists next blah blah blah?" Then half the room broke out in applause. And everyone turned and looked at me.
"First of all," I said, "as I stated in the beginning, the Federalist Society takes no position on this issue. In fact, there is disagreement among our executive board on this issue. But our goal is to provide real debate on these issues; so we invited two the best advocates from both sides. It was our idea to invite Professor Koppelman to present his perspective too." Then I started getting a bit passionate as the irritation of the question settled in. "Mr. Ventrella's position is a view shared by a huge number of people in this country. If you disagree with him, you are free to challenge him and ask questions. But if you are not interested in open and honest intellectual debate, don't come to our events!" Then the room broke out into an even louder applause then before.
After the event and in the following days, I have had many people congratulate me and say they were proud to be a part of the Federalist Society, including many who disagree with me on the marriage issue. As I reflect on Wednesday, I am still amazed that the woman had the audacity to ask that question. She was a reflection of the liberal intolerance at most institutions of higher learning. ADF is apparently so extreme, that they should not even have a chance to be heard. It should be noted that Mr. Ventrella had said nothing hateful or dismissive of homosexuals, unless you think opposing same-sex marriage automatically makes you a bigot (in which case you're wrong). Interestingly, after my comments, Professor Koppelman essentially stuck up for the Federalist Society and said that it is through rational debate that we resolve these sorts of things. Once again, I found that some of those who selectively adopt tolerance as their mantra really wish to silence those who disagree with them. Apparently it was not enough to host a debate with the pro-same-sex marriage side equally represented. The good news is, the hypocrisy of her position was recognized by most rational people at the debate. In the end, it was honest intellectual exploration of competing views that won the day, not narrow-minded censorship of those who are working to defend marriage in America.
posted by Anonymous @ 9:49 PM
<< Home