Focus 580; Same-Sex Marriage -  State and Federal Issues

Good morning welcome to focus 580 This is our morning talk program on Ames David and glad to have you with us on the program today we will do the first two programs this week dealing with the issue of same sex marriage. Obviously there are sharply divided sets of opinions and views on the subject that's why we're doing two programs one with a panel of guests to advance some arguments in favor of same sex marriage and then tomorrow morning in this same hour of the show we'll have some guests who make arguments against. So you'll have the opportunity to hear from all of them to size up their views think about how you feel and of course as always make questions make comments ask questions. It's not particularly a new issue but one that's been debated I think with greater urgency in the months since the state of Massachusetts made same sex marriage legal as a response some people in Congress said they think that the U.S. Constitution should be amended to bar it and in some states there have been some movements to to do the same thing. We'll talk a little bit about some of the issues involved the legal status of same sex marriage and of course take questions from people who are listening. We have three guests here in the studio with us Ryan

Phillippe's who is outreach associate with the Lambda Legal. This is a national organization that's interested in working for civil rights of lesbians gay men as well as bisexuals transgendered people and people with HIV or AIDS. She is here spending her time in Champaign-Urbana She's been traveling around the country promoting some discussion of the issue. Also with us in the studio Jerry Carden and Dixie Spencer and they're both local folks here from Champaign Urbana. Jerry Carden lives here and he is has been a gay activist and in fact went with his partner to Massachusetts to marry. And Dick Spencer is with us too she's a member of a local organization called to see you at the altar which is an organization that's interested in promoting legal civil marriage for same sex couples in the state of Illinois. Well thank you all very much for being here. Thank you thank you. Just to start just to review in case anybody was sure about the legal status of same sex marriage in the United States there has to date only one state

that has that acknowledges same sex marriage and that is the state of Massachusetts. Right. That's right. In addition there is one state where they have civil unions. That's Vermont. Then there are some other gradations of this one going down from there but at the other side something like is it thirty nine states in the law specifically say marriage is something that involves a man and a woman so they're the law officially bans same sex marriage. CRATCHIT right. OK. Tell me from from your perspective and from the perspective of Lambda Legal what is same sex marriage is about. Is this for you as a straight forward kind of civil rights issue. It is. It's about institution and institution which is created by the government which is marriage and it's about equal access to that institution for people in same sex partnerships. What obviously people in same sex partnerships could form could have a relationship they could publicly acknowledge that they could have some kind of ceremony and to do

that at what. What do you get. And I want to ask essentially the same question of both Jerry and Dixie but what do you get with being able to be married that you don't get. Any other way. Well when the federal government was passing Don't let the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 they did a fed they did a report an investigation to find out how many times marriage and marital benefits were in federal law and that came to about 1049 benefits. That's on the federal level there are also a number of state benefits. So we're looking at things like parental rights the right to establish automatic joint parenting adoption custody visitation. We're also talking about immigration and residency. We're talking about access to Social Security benefits. We're talking about in the case of death a spouse can draw in the Social Security income they can in the case of hospitalization automatically be able to visit they can automatically take time off of work. They're just a lot of things which come with marriage as an

institution which are now denied to same sex couples. Well let me go and I want to have a jury card and excitements or talk a little bit from your own personal perspective about why why for you the ability to marry is an important thing. I don't know who you want to go first I'm sure. First for me it's a civil rights issue I'm a citizen of this country I'm a citizen of this state and should have the same rights as everyone else. But beyond then it's it's a community issue. If we're married there's a recognition there that you don't get it from family from community to be on the right. You know there's a degree of acceptance of people family even treat you differently and look at you differently when you're married than when you just live together because you can't get married. Schools look at you differently I've had problems with schools here in Champaign with my own daughter in trying to involve my partner in my daughter's educational issues. They don't

recognize my partner they want some kind of legal document. Beyond that. I just I think it's wrong not wrong. I think it's unfair that same sex partnerships should have to go to lawyers pay money to get the same kinds of rights that heterosexual couple gets. Just by saying we're married. You know that's not right. You want to speak to the same issue. Yeah I pretty much agree with everything that Dixie said in terms of the civil rights issue in the matters of fairness it's just it's just not fair. And to use religious perspectives to base law on. That's what's really not fair. And I think that's what really irritates me the most about it and for my partner Tim and myself we've been together for 23 years and we never really had thought about getting quote married or even having a religious ceremony which obviously we can do. The Unitarian Universalist Church that were a member of has supported that since the middle

1980s. But we've never really chosen to do that. And for us getting married in Massachusetts was a little bit of a lark in terms of what we were hearing about everything in the news about the marriages in San Francisco civil unions in Vermont. We even talked about going out to San Francisco for you know a wedding but we didn't know exactly how long it was going to last. And with you we really question the legality of those marriages. And as you were talking about potential trip to San Francisco I just happen to think we're going to be going to Massachusetts for a vacation this summer anyway. We were visiting a lesbian couple that were very good friends with in Vermont and we'd already planned a trip to Boston and it just kind of came to me. Oh the Unitarian Universalist Association is headquartered in Boston. We could get married there by a reverend that works there and it just kind of all came together for us. And I think for us it's just it's more of a political statement that we want to get married wherever we can where it is the quote most legal. And even though that doesn't really afford us benefits here back in Illinois

we just feel that even having that piece of paper to put in with our power of attorney and our will and whatever would help someone in the future if there is a question as to what our intent is that it is our intent that we be treated as a legally married couple. Now you're right now it doesn't hold any weight but we don't know what the future holds in terms of you know the Supreme Court eventually if this makes it there whether there will be you know retroactive recognition of marriages that were performed. But for us it was just I think it's a political statement and a matter of fairness issue. Well I just want to ask royal marriages same sex marriages performed in Massachusetts are they acknowledge anywhere outside of Massachusetts. They are definitely acknowledged in New York. I believe they're acknowledging Connecticut there are a few different places which have said that they will honor the marriages performed elsewhere. New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer actually made it very clear that he was going to acknowledge that the state was going to acknowledge marriages performed both in Canada and in Massachusetts and anywhere else that would recognize

that legally. OK. But Illinois is not one of those places know that. Let me give our telephone number I guess I didn't do that in the beginning because I'm certainly interested in people calling in if you have comments you have questions here in Champaign-Urbana 3 3 3 9 4 5 5 toll free 800 to 2 2 9 4 5 5 again our guests Ryan Phillippe she is outreach coordinator with Lambda Legal This is a national organization that's interested in advancing the cause of civil rights for gay men and lesbians. Also here in studio Jerry Carden he lives here in Champaign Urbana. He is married to his partner. He and his partner were married in Massachusetts and Dixie Spencer. She's a member of see you at the altar. That is a local organization that promotes legal civil marriage for same sex couples in Illinois. Questions are welcome. You can give us a call. I wonder if Jerry and Dixie if have you had personal experiences having to do with discrimination and all of that. Jerry we're talking about the fact that you're in a party and been together for a long time now close to 30

years. Is there is there one perhaps one example that you can point to that said that there was a way in which you feel you were discriminated against where a heterosexual couple there would have been no. No question that they would have been afforded a particular kind of right. But what you and your partner because you're a same sex couple weren't. Well I think that happens pretty much every day in terms of the benefits that Ryann was talking about the 1049 benefits that are afforded to legally married couples. And some of those things haven't happened to us yet in terms of you know survivor benefits or whatever pensions and passing a property from one to the other. You know we don't look forward to that day but we know that it's probably going to be out there for one of the other of us whoever is going to be left behind. And I just want to make sure that we have those protections at the time that that might happen. And it's just it's still something that's kind of.

It cuts to your core knowing that you don't have those same benefits that heterosexual couples do. You know nowadays many more organizations are recognizing family memberships like Art Institute in Chicago or the architecture association or whatever whereas at one point in time that wasn't even recognized that you'd have to have individual memberships in those kinds of things. There are little things that are happening within society that you know begin to recognize you know same sex couples. But you know there's just discrimination I think that goes on every day just because we can't do it. You know I can think of two or three one we lived in Decatur for a while and were outright denied family membership at the YMCA because we were a lesbian couple and not considered a family. Another one is that my partner I've been a student for a while. And so my partner through her job carries the health insurance on both of us through domestic partner benefits. There are two downsides to that one every year we have to sign and have notarized an

affidavit that says that we're still together and we're going to stay together before they will even grant us access to the insurance and to the end of the year she gets financially penalize. She's taxed for the premiums that she pays for me to be on her insurance. I don't know any heterosexual couple who's financially penalize. Or has to sign an affidavit every year to prove that they're going to stay together if they did I think we might be in a lot of trouble around here with health insurance. But Bill and Dick these comments reminded me that yeah that's another way that we're discriminated against is that my employer does not offer same sex benefits and so I can't put him on my health insurance and he's in a profession where he probably would like to go out on his own and that in a way it's much cheaper for him to be employed by someone else that does have benefits and so the partner benefits is a big issue. Well let me come back here to Ryan just for a second and then we'll get to the calls because we have some. What about something that

would that would not be marriage but that would acknowledge that there is this legal relationship between the individuals so that they could they could have some some kind of some of these benefits I mean it would be there would be some way that we could do that and yet not cross the line of saying. We will make marriage legal for same sex couples. Well the only reason to deny the word marriage to same sex couples is discrimination. And so I am not going to argue for any second class status or secondary institution which is not full and equal benefits rights and responsibilities of marriage. Me I think that there are a number of things that same sex couples currently do to protect themselves and these are very very good things. There are a number of employers as we've talked about that offer same sex benefits domestic partnership health benefits. And there are a number of companies who also will offer medical leave. There are powers of attorney medical powers of attorney. There are a number of things that couples can

do. But it just doesn't have that full weight. And I think that you also don't get the respect and the recognition without that word without that institution being your backing from the rest of society and so the little things will chip away at the relationships you know you're going through customs and you're going through two separate lines because you can't be a family you're doing things like applying for a family membership somewhere you're signing an affidavit you're constantly having to prove that this is a commitment that lasts. And these are things that couples that have been together 20 and 30 years have to do which straight couples heterosexual couples don't have to do so. I wouldn't argue for a second class institution I think that we really need in this society to be full and equal participants in the institution of marriage. OK well let's take some calls Bloomington Indiana First up line number for toll free line below. Hi I have three quick questions if you will. First question. Whenever whenever people have been allowed to vote whenever there has been a referendum

in the state and people have been allowed to vote in order to approach it to protect the sanctity of marriage in the family they have overwhelmingly rejected same sex marriage from the most recent example is in the Missouri where 71 percent of the people voted to protect the sanctity of man woman marriage. And only 29 percent of the people in Missouri. That's. Are in favor of same sex marriage. So why shouldn't these people be allowed to vote. Why in the world should courts be allowed to tyrannically impose same sex marriage on people who don't want it. That's the first question I have small. Well what are we when we just take take one of the time you're sure and let's get a response from the guests. I think that first of all courts are not demanding that people who don't want to be married are going to be married. So I don't know that it's a tyrannical ruling to allow that. I do think that courts have traditionally shown the way. When the majority of the people I mean that

the system of checks and balances is set up so that the majority of people don't actually get say over the minority. And so in this case we're talking about a minority lesbian gay bisexual and transgendered people. And the courts are really showing us the way on that. Well that leads me to my second. Question because you say you seem to indicate that if homosexual marriage were allowed that would not affect heterosexual marriage. The experience in Canada and in the European countries that have approved homosexual marriage. That's not their experience. It is a matter of fact that is asserted serval things happen that are pretty impressive in those countries. First of all when the homosexuals are given the chance in marriage to marry only about one and a half percent of them I believe this. These are the Canadian statistics. Only about one and a half percent of the homosexuals bother to get married. But where where they are allowed to get married the fact that homosexuals are allowed to get married destroys the meaning of marriage.

Not many almost get married but the meaning of marriage is destroyed so that the people who are getting married in those countries. Would ordinarily get married don't bother to get married anymore and in some parts of Europe after after homosexual marriage was approved out of wedlock birth rates have soared to as much as 80 percent. That is the percent of babies being born out of wedlock. Marriage in the family simply being destroyed. I have difficulty understanding how it is that allowing loving committed couples to participate in an institution which help holds a loving committed partnerships is going to destroy the sanctity of marriage. I haven't seen studies I don't believe that there have been studies and I just I shudder at the idea of this cause and effect that one group of people is going to destroy family relationships and what we're looking for is security for our families. Related I would like to add a little comment to that related to the issue of

support for marriage for same sex couples. For many many many years ever since I came out as a gay man I have heard the comment well. Same sex couples don't last or same sex relationships don't last. And there's you know been so little societal support for same sex couples but yet I know a lot of long term relationships like mine and Tim's and they are out there it's just that they're often not seen or recognized. And if we were to provide a little bit more societal support for same sex couples it would make it easier for relationships to last and it would make it less likely that someone who is same sex oriented will get married to somebody of the opposite sex because I've known a lot of people both gay and lesbian who ended up getting married because of the societal pressure that is put on them. And then it's kind of interesting that after they realize that that marriage won't work and they divorce or they separate then other people come back on them and say well how could you get married and you know live a lie and mislead someone else. Well

we have to look at there's no societal support or very little societal support for people to form partnerships. And it's just interesting you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't because we don't want you to form partnerships. But we also don't want you to get married. Well no not that. Your comment that leads right into my third question. Some research by two homosexuals MEPs and the quarter you've probably heard of this research the these two people were both psychologists and both homosexuals and the by the way were living together. And they researched. They were trying to research faithful homo sexual partners in other words. Is there such a thing as homosexual marriage. If memory serves I think I've got my figures fairly close to right that they found the the longest lived the longest longest lasting homosexual partnership that they could find it was faithful that was faithful was five years.

Five years was the longest the longest they could find any two homosexuals faithful partners now there were a number of partnerships. But these went when investigated these each each of the homosexuals admitted that they had had on the average about eight partners per year. In other words they weren't being faithful that they were living together all right. Well I'm really interested to know who it is exactly they were surveying because I had the tremendous experience last year of interviewing about 40 same sex couples and documenting their relationship. And I interviewed couples who were together anywhere from three to 50 years. And I think that if there were some research done now. Drawing on people from a number of different settings not just the bars but also social service organizations and play affinity groups lots of different places that I think that research would show quite differently. You know I would just like to add that first of all my partner and I have been together faithfully seven and a half years and I think that the faithfulness in a relationship has

more to do with the integrity of the individual than it does with the type of the relationship. Because many many heterosexuals relationships are plagued by unfaithfulness. I've got some other callers I want to give you an opportunity if you want to make one last comment. To do that I would just say this. Mattson I'm a boarder as I understand were only investigated male homosexuals they did not investigate lesbians. That was their findings. But thank you. All right well let let me I have a couple of the callers I promise I'm not going to make these people wait too long but I do. I'm interested in your reflection on public opinion on this issue because surveys at least those that I have seen would indicate that more well more than half of Americans are opposed to the idea of same sex marriage. And certainly there have been there have been some votes taken in some states about the issue of amending their state constitution to bar it and those that seem most people in favor of that. They were there in the states where they have had the vote to change their constitution to bar same sex marriage. So what that says

it to me is that more people oppose it than are for it. And my question is Why do you think that is when when people when we go out there and we do surveys and we have. You know close to 60 percent of the people serving saying I don't think it's that we should have same sex marriage what. What do you think they are saying. Two things. One when you conduct a survey how you ask the question has everything to do with the response that you get the type of response you get to. I think that it's not indicative necessarily of the way people believe as much as that is of the level of education they have about the issue. So I think the more education the more understandings people have about the heart of the issue then you begin to see some of these numbers change. And I've seen this happen before I worked in civil rights and I've worked in disability rights and particularly in inclusive

education for kids with disabilities for a number of years. And as we went out and educated folks about what it really meant to put a kid with a disability in a classroom. Then they begin to turn around they begin to be less afraid. They begin to understand and the support really begin to flow. So I think you know you're looking at who's putting out the surveys. What are the questions being asked and how are the questions shaping the responses. You know there is says to me there's a huge level of need for education and understanding in this country about this issue. And I want to add to that because you know we're all subject to the soundbites of the news these days but I believe it was a portion of an NPR report that I heard shortly after the vote in Missouri that the caller was mentioning that a lot of people didn't understand the way that the question was worded and they didn't realize that they were voting against same sex marriage and they were appalled later when they found out that oh my god I was voting against my friends and relatives who happen to be gay or lesbian. And in relationship to support. You know in my

little microcosm of my world here in Urbana I live and work in Urbana and I didn't want to make a big deal out about about our marriage with my coworkers because I knew that there would be some people that were uncomfortable with it. I'm somewhat uncomfortable activist I guess and you know I don't want anybody to you know be upset or offended or whatever. And when some people at work found out that we were getting married they insisted that we do a shower because we always do showers for the heterosexuals weddings and their baby showers and all those kinds of things. In fact we've had a joke that there are those people that don't have the life events that never get the you know the events and they were just fabulous they you know with wonderful gifts and so much support. And that was actually two different work groups that did that. And I was just amazed. And you know among my neighbors or our neighbors nobody has had a divorce yet that I know of. I don't believe I've destroyed anyones opposite sex marriage and I've had several

opposite sex couples make that comment to us that you know I don't feel threatened at all by your being married. What is that all about. I don't get it. I think there are a few things people are concerned about changes hard for people and I think it's slow. I think there are not a lot of conversations one of the reasons we're out here doing the marriage equality bus tour is so that we can give people an opportunity to share their concerns and to find out what it is we're really looking for. There are number of people in this country who believe they don't know gay lesbian or bi or trans people. And that's just not the case. I think that we've seen that in places like New Jersey where these discussions are happening on a regular basis. The population the public support has gone from close to zero up to 50 60 67 percent of the population in support of marriage equality. And I think that that's no accident. People have fear that we are trying to say that faith communities for example are going to need to. Endorse same sex unions. We're not looking for faith communities to endorse same sex unions. There are many many

faith communities which already endorse same sex unions and they will continue to whether the law follows or not. There are also a number of faith communities which are not going to endorse same sex unions in the same way that many don't endorse interfaith unions or don't don't endorse a union if you don't go through a particular series of workshops or interviews. And I think we're not looking to change religious institutions in this country. What we're looking for is equal access to an institution which exists to support and protect families. We are a little bit past a midpoint here. Let me I want to get on some other callers and I should introduce Again our guest for this part of focus 580 Roy and Phillips. She is outreach associate with Lambda Legal This is a national organization that's interested in working on civil rights issues for gay men and lesbians. Gerry Carden lives here in Champaign Urbana he has been a gay activist and married his partner in Massachusetts not too long ago and also Dixie Spencer She is a member of see you at the altar. It's a champagne Urbana organization promoting legal civil marriage for same sex couples in the state of Illinois. I also want to mention to people who are listening that we

recognize that there are other views on this subject and tomorrow morning in the same hour of the show the 10 o'clock hour we're going to have another group of guests that will make the case against same sex marriage. You'll get the opportunity to hear them hear those ideas question them. We want to promote some. Reasonable discussion on the issue and that's why we're doing these programs. 3 3 3 9 4 5 5 toll free 800 to 2 2 9 4 5 5. The numbers we have some callers have been very patient and will get on to the next in champagne. Line 1 0 0 0 0. Yeah I'm on a cell phone. If you have trouble hearing me just let me know. OK I'd like to thank you all for coming and having this discussion I think it's incredibly important not just for homosexual couples but for any any couple any American to talk about that. I think first I'd just like to you know make a statement about the last caller and say that you obviously forgetting a few of the central tenets of the scientific method. First that

correlation does not imply causation simply because you know that homosexual marriage has been approved in a country and you know it. Birth out of wedlock birth has gone up does not mean that there is any causation in between those two points. Secondly majority rules is not what democracy is. You know sometimes there are bigoted majorities that need to be opened up forcibly or not not forcibly but you know need to be educated and say hey this is something that you are biased against unjustly and it's important you know justice is an important part of the American Constitution and the American spirit and you know it makes me sad to hear people say things like you know majority is against this war and I think that you'd find a lot of people

are not educated in and are not aware of. The number of people around them that hold views differently. My question for you is I just heard this morning on the news and I'm not sure where he was speaking by it. Dick Cheney did come out and say that he had an opposing view to President Bush and that he thought that gay marriage was a state issue. I know that's a little bit of a soft soft thing. He's basically talking around the issue saying at the State issue rather than saying I believe that people have the right to do whatever I do I don't have the full text of what he said. But how important is this Do you think for him. I know that his one of his daughters is gay. And but you know for the community how important do you think that is that he's coming out and saying. I just like to hear your

viewpoints on that hang up. All right. Thank you for the go. I heard the same quote and it confused me a little bit because I wasn't exactly sure what he was saying but I'm interested in. Yes and what you think then. Yes my impression was and again it was kind of like this soundbite where I was passing the TV set when I happened to see him being interviewed and I saw him say that he acknowledged you know that his daughter was gay lesbian and there's been a lot of issues I think within the gay community in terms of her being pretty silent on this issue. And I don't know whether she's been doing a lot of arm twisting behind the scenes to get Dad to acknowledge her or to acknowledge this issue. But in essence I felt that he was saying that my viewpoints on this are different from the president's. My understanding was that and he was speaking in Davenport Iowa. But my understanding was that he was very proud of both of his daughters including his lesbian daughter. He spoke about the need for states to be the decision makers on this issue. And he spoke about

the fact that there was not enough support in Congress for the constitutional amendment to restrict marriage to between a man and a woman. Well what pres President Bush had said has said very clearly and you correct me if I'm misquoting him he says he thinks he would favor the constant US Constitution being amended to bar same sex marriage. Correct right. Mr. Kerry has said he's not particularly in favor of same sex marriage but he was not in favor of amending the Constitution. So I don't know if those two positions sort of cancel each other out in mean that this is not particularly an issue. Or not I guess my question is do you think in the presidential contest that we've got going now that the issue of same sex marriages is going to be an issue. Well I think that certain people are trying to make it an issue in terms of focusing away from other issues because they feel that there are so many people in America that are against same sex marriage. And I think I really do think that they're mistaken. And I personally

believe that Kerry probably is soft pedaling a little bit on this issue and probably realizes it could be political suicide for him to come out and support same sex marriage. And so that he's at least going part way and talking about civil unions. I don't know how everyone else feels on that. I think that for whatever his reasons Vice President Cheney just made an incredibly affirming statement about the value of family and marriage. Let's go on to another call the next person is in Champaign and it's going to. Hello. Yeah good morning. I'm a coward. My concerns were raised by the caller before I last like to really question the relevance of an increase of out of wedlock births to legal marriage for gays. It's a journey of a pretty open society over there in the 70s and I don't.

Legal marriage for gays is anything to do with a rate with an increase in out of wedlock births. And they also I think you're a researcher of questionable that said they were. You could be the longest married sure the longest partnership that was faithful with five years. That sounds like a very skewed sample to me and especially if you only did now and then the issue of minority rights. Just because the majority is against something there's a lot of mob mentality that's against things. And I believe that the time of the Amistad ship where those slaves had a revolt and they were eventually given their freedom I think in Massachusetts the majority was not in favor of the majority of the populace thought slavery was okay. And you know it doesn't make it OK. And. The same arguments have been advanced for were advanced for interracial

marriage 100 years ago or even maybe 50 years ago. Why would you want your daughter marry one you know all that sort of thing all the same arguments because people have fear of the unknown and you can't be black usually and not be noticeable. But you can be gay and keep it hidden. So I'm sure that a lot of people know a gay lesbian transgender bisexual people and don't really have any idea that they do. And my last point is about marriage in the Bible because the color before last from Indiana is fond of thumping on the Bible and he is saying that marriage is between one man and one woman. When he last looked in the Old Testament because the Old Testament is full of multiple marriage it's true it's not between two men or two women but it's between one man and numerous wives. You know the story of. You know Benjamin and Jake of their of their father. That was the mother of

Rachel for the mothers and and their maidservants had had children on the laps of their mistress so it would count as their child and you know there's all kinds of stuff like that. And it was in fact the duty of a Jewish man if his brother died and was married that he had to he was obligated to marry her and to marry his brother's widow because in that society you could not be a woman alone. So the Bible is not full of one man and one woman. There are a lot of variations on that. So it's all right and I'm proud to say I was at the event last night and there were 110 people there and it was just a rousing crowd and it was great. Thanks Ana. One of the things that go I do have some other callers and I want to try to see how many people I can include Is there anything in particular that you'd like to comment on that the caller had to say. I mean if not we can just go on and talk to us more. What I would love to hear from other callers. All right let's do that we have someone on the

campus there next in line three. Hello. Hi. I would like to respond to the gentleman who called in first talking about the psychologist who did the study. The American Psychological Association just had its annual convention in August and they've come out with a statement that I thought he might be interested in hearing. The council has expressed opposition to discrimination against lesbian and gay parents and they found that same sex and heterosexual couples are remarkably similar and the parenting effectiveness and children's psychological well-being were unrelated to parental sexual orientation. This group has based its recommendations on research and I think that this is a little bit more have a more weight to the issue and I would like the panel to kind of respond to the difference between I've heard the words civil marriage and religious marriage and sort of what what is that.

You want to speak to the difference between civil marriage and religious marriage. I think religious marriage is something which happens within a spiritual or faith community. And it doesn't come along with any sort of rights benefits or responsibilities conferred by the government where civil marriage is a contract that a couple makes with the government state and ultimately federal government. And that comes with these you know we've been tossing around that thousand fourteen forty nine which was decided in 96 benefits but it's actually more like 11:38 benefits they've decided since but that comes with immigration rights that comes with the opportunity to collect Social Security benefits on a long term partnership that that comes with a lot of things I think we can you know have talked about over the course of the last half hour. Does that clarify right at all marriages are really civil marriages right. Well yes although I would say that there are a number of same sex couples who have entered into holy union and do feel themselves married and are

looked upon as married and yet they they have that they do not have the protection that the law would afford in recognizing that marital status. Right. Thank you very much. Thank you thank you. Let's Gunton you will go to a caller here in Westfields is our toll free one. Hello good morning. Yes. Very established in God's word can only take place between one man and one woman. Genesis 2 21 through 25. Matthew 19 4 through 9. Was intended by God to produce God all spring to 15. We are to speak out in truth. Sexuality is never clay wrong and condemned by God in First Corinthians 69. My question to the couple is they are words do not understand the Word of God. I have tremendous respect for people who have a deeply held spiritual faith

belief and I think that's not something I want to disagree with. I think that people can have the spiritual beliefs that they have in this country. This country is founded in part on freedom of religion. I think there are a number of faith communities a number of religious institutions Unitarian Universalist certainly a number of Jewish communities a number of other Christian communities that do bless the unions of same sex couples. And this is not at issue here what's at issue here is civil marriage is the recognition by the government of a union created between two loving committed people. I just want to add one thing. It frightens me when people. Quote the Bible in a very literal sense because I have a daughter who was born sterile and in in what you just quoted. According to that my daughter who is heterosexual can never get married because she cannot procreate. I find that extraordinarily frightening. In the United States of America. And even though I was raised in a Christian tradition I do not espouse Christian

principles or beliefs. I believe in a higher power but I don't believe in that the Bible is an inerrant document. I believe that the religious institutions over the years have always been political. We know that from recent experience and they certainly have been ever since time immemorial. And I can't trust the things that have been translated over thousands and thousands of different translations from a lot of different ancient languages really were accurate translations. I believe that many of those translations were done at the time in order to control the people. And whatever happened to separation of church and state. I mean I don't think that this is a discussion we really should even be having because we are not a religious state. Well I was a caller want to make a follow up. Perhaps not. Well the Bible yes is the most translated oldest book in print and copied the most

number of times and I cannot understand why these people would find that there is a difficulty in understanding the translation that has taken place through the years because it has been translated and retranslated and re translated by so many different individuals of different faiths and they all come up with the same uniform code of living. All right well I would take issue with that. I will have to leave it at that will go into another caller this is someone in Bloomington Illinois. Lie Number 1. Hello. The present composition of marriage is two people of opposite sexes. Now if we change the sexual composition of that institution to same sexes then on what basis do you deny changing the numerical concept in numerical composition of that. Institutions four for three women or three men or one man and three women. Since one of the guests is also advocating for

bisexuals by definition you're advocating for allowing three or more people to marry. There are a number of things to respond to in that. First of all Bisexuality does not mean that a person is going to then make a life partnership with two different people. Bisexuality means that you can be attracted to people of either gender. So in advocating for the rights of bisexual people we're advocating for the right to commit to and not be discriminated against. I'm sorry I'm using my words here but to commit to people of either gender and to not be discriminated against on the basis of that orientation the bi sexual orientation So that's point number one. Point number two there has not been conversation about trying to create an institution which is open to more than two people. The conversation is about who it is that has access to this institution.

Well but if you change the sexual composition on what. Basis do you deny changing the numerical composition in this United States and we all like to push the envelope as far as we can and we all know that people will be asking for that. What would make anybody think for a second that gay individuals want to change the numeric composition. Maybe that would be proposed by a heterosexual person. Why gays why do you presume gays would want to change the numeric composition just because we want to have our loving and affirming relationships acknowledged by our communities. No that's that's absolutely true. If you change the composition way it is now you know what's to stop polygamous for asking for change in Americal composition heterosexual polygamous. There's nothing preventing other people from asking for that kind of recognition. But again it's what would people be willing to go toward And

I just think there's so many people that would be against that kind of thing and right now the debate is about same sex couples to partners the legal principles are different in each now. My background is in education and in theater not in the law specifically although I work for Lambda Legal. So I can't tell you exactly what those legal principles are and I apologize for that but the legal principles are different in talking about who it is that's allowed to access it. And then in talking about the institution and what that is and when you talk about the numerical composition you're talking about a change of the institution. The conversation we're having in this country right now is not about a change to the institution of marriage but rather about who has access to it. We're I'm going to jump in here because we don't have very much time I want to try to get at least one more caller here but I do again just want to make sure that that we have answered the question the caller because I know that some of the people who are concerned about same sex marriage this is the very question that they raise. They say that if you make this argument on a civil rights kind of basis that says you can't if you have

one group of individuals that that is people who are homosexual you can't discriminate against them if you say this other group that are straight they can get married you that you can't then say with you because you're not straight you can't get married. If you make that argument that says you're extending the same right to all of those you're what you're saying is that you don't necessarily think that that means if a person comes along and says well why can't I have two wives. You said this straight couple could get married in this gay couple couple could marry so why can't I have two wives and you're saying that there's you that this same argument the same some sort of civil rights are going does not extend. I don't believe it does seem and. That's about a change to the actual institution right. OK and in from a civil rights perspective when we fought to get kids with severe disabilities included in educational environments public educational environments we were faced with the same thing if you let those kids in. Pretty soon all the schools are going to turn into mini hospitals because you'll have all these kids who are really involved. The fact is it just didn't turn out that

way. You know I think he's talking about a separate argument down the road. That's a whole nother issue. OK. Let's talk with another caller champagne this is going to either me. Yes I just had to call him on the other caller quoting the Bible I mean that is such a minority of people in the in the world that he's excluding. I mean but the majority of people in the world he's exploding if he's got that narrow definition of marriage you can't have no illusion. Will can get married because there are so very few Christians that are in the Asian community you know. Anybody past menopause can't get married men with erectile dysfunction can't get married adoption is just thrown out the window because God created men and women to make kids and I just think that's the most bogus. Argument I've heard and I'm sorry if I'm shouting but I guess I'll let it go at that. All right. If you would anybody want to go over the same lines I just I have the problem with the Bible as quote about anything having to do with same sex issues and they're trying to say that oh you know

God says homosexuality is wrong because they don't seem to have the same venom against other issues that this caller just raised in terms of whether or not it's all escaping me in terms of it. Working on Sunday for example there's a one of the major Commandments the rest on Sunday and that people cannot get divorced. And we have a divorce rate of half of the heterosexual marriages that that form end in divorce. And the Bible says it has words against that and all kinds of prescriptions you can't eat shellfish and so on and so forth. But you don't hear people exercising those prescriptions it just seems to be the ones about homosexuality that get invoked in all these religious discussions that I just think we shouldn't even be having them in this country. What we're promoting is not about religion it's about helping people understand the difference between a legal institution civil unions and civil

marriages. It has nothing to do with the religious aspect. Well I think we're pretty much at the point we're going to have to stop and my apologies we have another caller we can take but this is just the first of two shows that we're doing this week to discuss this issue will have another program for you tomorrow morning in the 10:00 o'clock hour with a completely different set of viewpoints. And again the opportunity to call and ask questions make comments. Listen to the guest. Hear what they have to say. And we'll do that than any last sort of thought that you'd like to leave with us. I did want to make one more point because we've bandied about this word civil unions and I think there is also a misconception about civil unions civil unions currently are a state institution. They are not necessarily portable across state lines and they do not include federal benefits such as immigration or collection of Social Security insurance or filing of federal taxes and so I just wanted to point out that disparity because a lot of people feel that civil unions could replace civil marriage for LGBT people lesbian gay bi and trans people. And I think civil unions are more like a marriage lite.

OK well there we will leave it with our thanks to Ryan Phillips. She's outreach associate with Lambda Legal and Jerry Carden He's resident here in Champaign Urbana get one time and maybe current gay activist. He has partner married in Massachusetts not long ago and Dixie Spencer. She's a member of a local organization See you at the altar. They're interested in promoting legal civil marriage for same sex couples in Illinois. Thank you all very much. Thank you.