This past Monday night we headed to Meredith college for the panel discussion titled: Religious & Political Dimensions of Same Sex Marriage in NC. There were 5 speakers, two males for the amendment and three women against. (I couldn't help but wonder whether or not Tammi Fitzgerald or other NC women who are for the amendment were intentionally not asked to come.)
I think the word "contentious" would be a good description for the audience. The panelists all at various points showed constraint and toward the end the professionalism for some started to ebb as emotions flared. I will say it went a lot better than I was expecting, though I would have preferred a moderator who actually moderated.
Dr. Maxine Eichner started well, going over some of the basic legal terminology, and it was clear she is accustomed to teaching the younger generation, using power point with a lot of imagery. I would have enjoyed hearing more of an explanation for some of her reasons why it should not pass (issues of inheritance, death wishes, guardians, health & estate mandates, adoption/parental rights) as while I've heard many people state these as discrimination areas, I've found a lot of times it's simply that people are ignorant of the law and how to properly address those issues. Laws do vary from state to state, but NC has been very lenient in this area.
Anthony Biller (some papers list it as Miller; I couldn't read his name tag) disputed some of Dr. Eichner's claims about legal terms, then addressed his main point about the competing views of marriage (whether it is family centered or adult centered), and continuously addressed the population/fertility rates of sustainability in countries that have legalized gay marriage or marginalized marriage. His presentation was very dry, very legalistic (as in jargon), and after the initial shock of hearing their professor refuted, most of the Meredith students sitting in front of us tuned him out.
There was quite a bit of rhetoric between the two attorneys on "empirical evidence". I found it a bit strange that studies based on concrete facts, such as census data, was being branded as "not empirical" while research and viewpoints ending with personal appeals and family pictures was. It was at this point I realized now matter how hard a person tries to be unbiased in their presentation, it simply wasn't going to happen.
Meredith psychologist Dr. Mann...where do I begin? Being a psychologist who deals with transgender issues and is in a lesbian relationship, this was very personal to her, and it showed. Throughout any speech where the speaker disagreed with her viewpoint, she was clinching and unclinching her fists, kicking the tablecloth, rolling her eyes like a teenager, and grimacing. After all her antics, I was expecting a hateful diatribe, but she did a decent job of presenting her emotional plea. She saved her venom for the question and answer time, where she spouted off comments like "I don't even care about marriage any more.", "Why should the Bible dictate me?" and comparing America's judicial system being based on Judea-Christian values to our government operating under Sharia law. I don't know that I found her comments as offensive as her attitude.
Patrick Wooten, pastor of Upper Room Church of God in Christ, brought along part of his congregation. It made for an interesting audience mix, with the white, pro-lesbian Meredith females in front, and the older African-American congregation in the back. We were stuck in the middle, allowing us to hear the comments and jeers coming from behind while observing the head-smacking, foot stomping, and snarling take place in front of us. If you've ever been in an African-American church service, you will understand the phrase "Let's have church." The place literally moves. The sermon is a call-response type of dialogue, with the speaker issuing statements and the audience responding with either affirmation or denial. It's not disrespectful, it has a rhythm and sequence to it, and it's not uncommon for the audience to become so excited over something said that they jump to their feet in applause. After sitting through several services, I understand why blacks think white services are boring, if not dead. So, take this crowd's cultural background, transport it into a predominately white female girl's school, and I think you can grasp the differences in how the crowd responded to speakers.
I was impressed with the attitude and demeanor of both pastors who spoke. They stuck to their theological viewpoints. I might have cowered at some of the questions, but Wooten had the courage to stand. The following are quotes/paraphrases from his speech: Marriage was not created by the NC legislature or its laws. God's laws are older than those of this state. It became a government issue in the 1800s when the government realized they could tax marriage by creating a license with a fee. Marriage is not a right and is discriminatory. The law sets limits on a person's age, qualifications, and the sex of the partners. Believing marriage has such definitions does not make me a bigot or a homophobe. During the heated debate between Pastor Wooten and Professor Mann, he stated emotional attachments do not change what is right. When a student raised the question about the past language of interracial marriage being similar to that used against gay marriage, he responded with the illustration of Moses and that the Bible did not teach interracial marriage was a sin. Later in the discussion, he quoted the passage from Leviticus "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." and asked "How many ways can you flip that?"
Rev. Nancy Petty, lesbian pastor of Pullen Memorial Baptist in Raleigh, claims the marriage amendment "codifies discrimination." In her speech she listed slavery, alcohol, abortion, and women's rights as issues in the Bible where interpretations differed and the Bible contradicted itself. (This is one of 2 places where the crowd behind us got out of hand with their jeering laughter and comments. The other was when she said the Bible changes positions, changes the nature of God, and doesn't offer answers.) She referenced several Bible passages, some of which Pastor Wooten had a brief opportunity to put in their proper context, as well as the following statements: Our culture is sexually illiterate and fixated; the church should be an advocate for religious education; sin is not about sex, but abuse of power; God is a god of justice; His law is inclusive.
There was quite a bit of debate between Petty, Wooten, and Biller over the purpose of the institution of marriage and the issue of divorce was brought up. Petty did make a good point with the issue of families and children. She and her partner have adopted a child from Russia. Her question was "Can you tell me this child would be better off on the streets than in our home?"
At this point there wasn't time to adequately discuss the issue of adoption or the definition of a family, but here's some interesting quotes/snippets from the end:
"It has never been a sin to be an African-American. That is not behavior, for us it's a matter of birth." ~ Wooten
to which Petty replied (the most emotion I saw out of her that night) "There is nothing wrong with my sexuality."
"With birth control, we can separate procreation from affection."
"This is about what marriage is versus what it should be." ~ Dr. Emerich
"If we're going to redefine marriage, then where does it stop?" three men, a pet, a group of people? ~ Wooten
"We need to protect Wooten's rights but also protect my rights with different beliefs." - Petty
I think if the group who sponsored the event had given each candidate the same list of topics (adoption, inheritance issues, religious issues, etc) to be prepared to discuss it might have made things a little more organized. I understand they were trying to cover as much ground from different viewpoints as possible, but it gave a hodgepodge effect of hitting highlights but discussing the details of very little. The only thing all the speakers agreed on was that changing the constitution is not a light matter, and this debate/vote is very important.
I think the word "contentious" would be a good description for the audience. The panelists all at various points showed constraint and toward the end the professionalism for some started to ebb as emotions flared. I will say it went a lot better than I was expecting, though I would have preferred a moderator who actually moderated.
Dr. Maxine Eichner started well, going over some of the basic legal terminology, and it was clear she is accustomed to teaching the younger generation, using power point with a lot of imagery. I would have enjoyed hearing more of an explanation for some of her reasons why it should not pass (issues of inheritance, death wishes, guardians, health & estate mandates, adoption/parental rights) as while I've heard many people state these as discrimination areas, I've found a lot of times it's simply that people are ignorant of the law and how to properly address those issues. Laws do vary from state to state, but NC has been very lenient in this area.
Anthony Biller (some papers list it as Miller; I couldn't read his name tag) disputed some of Dr. Eichner's claims about legal terms, then addressed his main point about the competing views of marriage (whether it is family centered or adult centered), and continuously addressed the population/fertility rates of sustainability in countries that have legalized gay marriage or marginalized marriage. His presentation was very dry, very legalistic (as in jargon), and after the initial shock of hearing their professor refuted, most of the Meredith students sitting in front of us tuned him out.
There was quite a bit of rhetoric between the two attorneys on "empirical evidence". I found it a bit strange that studies based on concrete facts, such as census data, was being branded as "not empirical" while research and viewpoints ending with personal appeals and family pictures was. It was at this point I realized now matter how hard a person tries to be unbiased in their presentation, it simply wasn't going to happen.
Meredith psychologist Dr. Mann...where do I begin? Being a psychologist who deals with transgender issues and is in a lesbian relationship, this was very personal to her, and it showed. Throughout any speech where the speaker disagreed with her viewpoint, she was clinching and unclinching her fists, kicking the tablecloth, rolling her eyes like a teenager, and grimacing. After all her antics, I was expecting a hateful diatribe, but she did a decent job of presenting her emotional plea. She saved her venom for the question and answer time, where she spouted off comments like "I don't even care about marriage any more.", "Why should the Bible dictate me?" and comparing America's judicial system being based on Judea-Christian values to our government operating under Sharia law. I don't know that I found her comments as offensive as her attitude.
Patrick Wooten, pastor of Upper Room Church of God in Christ, brought along part of his congregation. It made for an interesting audience mix, with the white, pro-lesbian Meredith females in front, and the older African-American congregation in the back. We were stuck in the middle, allowing us to hear the comments and jeers coming from behind while observing the head-smacking, foot stomping, and snarling take place in front of us. If you've ever been in an African-American church service, you will understand the phrase "Let's have church." The place literally moves. The sermon is a call-response type of dialogue, with the speaker issuing statements and the audience responding with either affirmation or denial. It's not disrespectful, it has a rhythm and sequence to it, and it's not uncommon for the audience to become so excited over something said that they jump to their feet in applause. After sitting through several services, I understand why blacks think white services are boring, if not dead. So, take this crowd's cultural background, transport it into a predominately white female girl's school, and I think you can grasp the differences in how the crowd responded to speakers.
I was impressed with the attitude and demeanor of both pastors who spoke. They stuck to their theological viewpoints. I might have cowered at some of the questions, but Wooten had the courage to stand. The following are quotes/paraphrases from his speech: Marriage was not created by the NC legislature or its laws. God's laws are older than those of this state. It became a government issue in the 1800s when the government realized they could tax marriage by creating a license with a fee. Marriage is not a right and is discriminatory. The law sets limits on a person's age, qualifications, and the sex of the partners. Believing marriage has such definitions does not make me a bigot or a homophobe. During the heated debate between Pastor Wooten and Professor Mann, he stated emotional attachments do not change what is right. When a student raised the question about the past language of interracial marriage being similar to that used against gay marriage, he responded with the illustration of Moses and that the Bible did not teach interracial marriage was a sin. Later in the discussion, he quoted the passage from Leviticus "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." and asked "How many ways can you flip that?"
Rev. Nancy Petty, lesbian pastor of Pullen Memorial Baptist in Raleigh, claims the marriage amendment "codifies discrimination." In her speech she listed slavery, alcohol, abortion, and women's rights as issues in the Bible where interpretations differed and the Bible contradicted itself. (This is one of 2 places where the crowd behind us got out of hand with their jeering laughter and comments. The other was when she said the Bible changes positions, changes the nature of God, and doesn't offer answers.) She referenced several Bible passages, some of which Pastor Wooten had a brief opportunity to put in their proper context, as well as the following statements: Our culture is sexually illiterate and fixated; the church should be an advocate for religious education; sin is not about sex, but abuse of power; God is a god of justice; His law is inclusive.
There was quite a bit of debate between Petty, Wooten, and Biller over the purpose of the institution of marriage and the issue of divorce was brought up. Petty did make a good point with the issue of families and children. She and her partner have adopted a child from Russia. Her question was "Can you tell me this child would be better off on the streets than in our home?"
At this point there wasn't time to adequately discuss the issue of adoption or the definition of a family, but here's some interesting quotes/snippets from the end:
"It has never been a sin to be an African-American. That is not behavior, for us it's a matter of birth." ~ Wooten
to which Petty replied (the most emotion I saw out of her that night) "There is nothing wrong with my sexuality."
"With birth control, we can separate procreation from affection."
"This is about what marriage is versus what it should be." ~ Dr. Emerich
"If we're going to redefine marriage, then where does it stop?" three men, a pet, a group of people? ~ Wooten
"We need to protect Wooten's rights but also protect my rights with different beliefs." - Petty
I think if the group who sponsored the event had given each candidate the same list of topics (adoption, inheritance issues, religious issues, etc) to be prepared to discuss it might have made things a little more organized. I understand they were trying to cover as much ground from different viewpoints as possible, but it gave a hodgepodge effect of hitting highlights but discussing the details of very little. The only thing all the speakers agreed on was that changing the constitution is not a light matter, and this debate/vote is very important.
Comments