Advocating on behalf of the students of UMBC is the main work of the SGA. And so, I am presenting an issue that affects a significant portion of our constituency. The Maryland General Assembly is considering a bill (House Bill 351 - Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act) that would redefine civil marriage in Maryland. The bill would allow any two individuals, who otherwise are not restricted from marrying, to be married under Maryland law. Student leaders and SGA members at St. Mary's College of Maryland are advocating for this legislation and have contacted our SGA about considering this issue.
What do you think about the legislation? Further, do you think this is an issue that the SGA should be lobbying on?
Defining Marriage in Maryland
Sunday, February 24, 2008Posted by at 4:16 PM
Labels: CGA, executive, Josh Michael
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
41 comments:
Maybe through myUMBC, a poll could be conducted asking this question [should the SGA support this bill, oppose it, or stay out of it?].
That way, everyone would have the opportunity to voice their opinion once and you'd have a better idea of what move the SGA should take.
I think that as it is a human rights issue that the SGA should advocate for it. Yes, it is politicized but at its base, no matter what side of the issue students happen to fall on, it is just that a human rights issue. Shouldn't everyone have the right to decide where there money and property goes after their death, have the people they choose take care of them by their sick bed, and have their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Called marriage or civil union it really boils down to making sure every American has the same rights. Additionally, health care for couples and tax breaks affect economically who gets their fair share of the pie.
Yes, I think the SGA should weigh in and support the legislation. A world where everyone is treated equally makes a happier state.
Anonymous, you are completely on point. Though we have the ability to poll, the fact is the SGA represents students who are not heterosexual and as such has the responsibility to speak on their behalf.
I'd like to note that this post used the phrase "civil marriage," which is strictly legal in nature, so the usual arguments about forcing a religion to do something it might not want to do wouldn't need to be repeated here. Separation of church and state is still in effect, and I would hope people understand that differentiation.
Thanks a lot for commenting here, please know that your voice is being heard.
--J
I think it's a good discussion to have. However, I agree with Sameera that this issue is beyond a simple vote of support in the SGA Senate. Another letter drive like the one for higher education funding could be very effective because not only can individuals voice their opinions, but if a lot of people send in letters from UMBC, it says a lot about our campus in general.
1. I completely agree with Steve
2. YES SGA should lobby either for/against this bill based on the student population's opinions.
let me run down a secenario: what if the vast majority of students hated the legislation and wanted SGA to lobby against it. The SGA is 100% for the bill, and want to keep it.
Does the SGA lobby against the bill, for the bill, or no stance.
Does the SGA still represent the student body and opinions?
NOTE: I am 100% for the bill. Its a Human Rights issue, gay marriage is long past due in MD
If it is part of the SGA's duty to advocate on behalf of UMBC students, why don't they also advocate for those who are against the bill? You may understand "advocating" to be doing what is in the interest of the party who is deprived or harmed (in their opinion homosexuals, etc.). However, what about the opposition that is--whether real or imagined--harmed or adversely affected by gay civil marriage? Shouldn't you advocate for them too? They are also UMBC students. It is hard to say what the SGA should do, because the organization as a whole cannot take both sides of the issue, but I like the fact that they are taking an interest in something they know to have an effect on at least a portion of the student body.
I agree with the anonymous who posted above me. It's great that SGA wants to get involved with something that affects alot of people. There will be students who feel strongly both ways, so SGA should, in my opinion, look into how they can best represent the students as a whole. Like anonymous said, as an organization they can only take one stance, but if they pick a side, where does that leave the rest of the students? Not a criticism, just a thought :)
On issues that may be more controversial like this one, I feel like it is the SGA's responsibility to notify the student body and open up the floor for discussion. We can provide them with the information and the means for students to advocate on whichever side of the issue they prefer.
I definately agree with the majority of the comments above that have to do with getting a general consensus of the UMBC student body. As an SGA we are responsible for refelcting student views and if at the moment we do not know what the general reaction to this bill would be, we should have a poll to know what that is.
Who knows, a majority of the students may feel that we have nothing to do with it, or may vote for it.
It would otherwise be "dictoritarian" in a sense to join in and lobby for this bill without knowing what the student population thinks.
"the fact is the SGA represents students who are not heterosexual and as such has the responsibility to speak on their behalf."
Yet the SGA represents students who are heterosexual and may oppose the bill. There is no way that SGA is going to be able to make everyone happy no matter which side they choose. If SGA chooses to oppose the bill then many non-heterosexual people will be upset, and if SGA decides to support the bill then here will be many heterosexual people who will be upset.
Unfortunately there is no simple happy median for this issue.
I for one oppose the bill.
The government should stay out of marriage all together. No tax breaks, nothing. It should be left up to religion and to God. Seeing as marriage was initially intended to be a religious union between a man, a woman and God, I believe that is how it should remain.
Many say its an issue of equality where homosexuals dont have the same rights, but the only reason they want said rights is because of the government treating married couples differently.
So I say, this is not an issue of the government not giving rights to some but giving rights to others which should not be theirs to give.
@Anonymous (February 26, 2008 10:23 AM):
Do you oppose the bill because it gives the same rights and privileges to people who are different from you? The bill doesn't take away any rights you currently enjoy? (Preemptive answer: no)
I have a hard time buying the argument that SGA shouldn't support it because some people don't support it, since that would in effect be supporting discrimination which, as we all know, isn’t a UMBC value. It’s true that the SGA can’t support and simultaneously not support the bill, but wouldn’t the fact that some of its constituents gain more rights even though other constituents, who are otherwise not affected in any way, are against those people having those rights tip them towards supporting the bill and therefore those students?
Change the language of the bill to affect black people instead of homosexuals: does that change your opinion of it? The day homophobes are looked upon the same way racists are today is long overdue because each is in fact the same specter in a different form: bigotry.
At least Anonymous (February 26, 2008 10:35 AM) has the right idea in terms of equality, even though abolition of marriage privileges will never happen.
I think that with such a controversial issue, the SGA should stay out of it. Because of the differing opinions on gay marriage, the SGA cannot possibly go to Annapolis and be representing the student opinion.
Also, considering how this bill is not something that affects our students in a student role (as opposed to a textbook bill, for instance), it's not something that the SGA should be lobbying on in the first place.
Yikes. This issue is very tense on both sides of the fence. I must agree with Jen. Even though this may be a personal issue for several students on the campus, it does not affect them as students. That is to say their UMBC life is seperate from their life outside of campus. We can advocate for changes for their UMBC lives, but is it our responsibility to advocate for their out of UMBC lives? For that question, I lean towards the no side, because we were not elected/ apppointed to do that.
I agree with many of the previous comments. I absolutely support this bill and personally plan to work to help it pass. I do not, however, think that supporting the bill is something the SGA should take on. Gay marriage is a very divisive issue and you will not find a stance that will represent all of the students on campus. Even though I think that students that are against this bill are wrongwrongwrongwrongWRONG, I really don't think it would be fair for SGA to say that they are representing the student body of UMBC in support of gay marriage in Maryland.
JenKent is right, this isn't an issue about textbooks, so we should just "stay out of it."
University students have never had any role in the fight for civil rights, and it should stay that way. Students could never make an impact in this sort of thing anyway, so it's not worth trying. We should train ourselves and the student body at large to turn the other cheek when the rights of a minority are being denied or otherwise hindered.
@the most recent anonymous...
I agree with your sarcasm, students should absolutely be involved in civil rights issues and we should all be activists to the best of our ability. But this is an issue where a lot of students are going to disagree. Which is fine! We should discuss the issue! We learn from each other! We should debate! But since this issue is so divisive I really don't think it is the place of the SGA to take an official stance. If the SGA were to simply encourage students to become activists on there own in an UNBIASED matter I think that'd be fantastic. But we shouldn't silence our fellow students just because we disagree with them.
Meg- I agree totally. Like I said before, on such a divided issue the SGA is not going to be able to truly represent the views of the students. (Just look at how much disagreement this one blog entry has caused)
What I meant by the textbook thing was that because it is such a controversial issue, and because it's technically not an issue that affects us as students, it is okay that the SGA as a representative body does not take a stance on it.
If some arent in favor of the bill and the SGA supports it then the SGA is discriminating against those who dont support it. On subjects not related to the school or academics (this issue concerns personal lives of students) the SGA should not get involved simply because they cant help but discriminate against someone.
Therefore to avoid discrimination against either side the SGA should stay out of it.
Also in response to Anonymous@February 26, 2008 12:32 PM
I do not believe that abolition of marriage privileges will happen any time soon in the United States, but I do not feel that taking a step in the wrong direction is the way to go. Giving homosexuals the privileges which heterosexual marriages shouldn't rightly have just because they have it, is a step in the wrong direction. Its the same as when your mother told you two wrongs dont make a right. Giving them equal privileges does not make anything right, it only makes more wrong.
While I do not believe in the bill, or in the government giving privileges to married couples if the bill does happen to pass (which I hope it does not) it could turn out well. It may force many of the marriages to consider what marriage is really supposed to be. This may in the end lead to the revocation of marriage privileges such tax breaks etc.
One last point I just thought of. If more people have the unjust right to marriage privileges more people who are not ready to commit to a marriage will get married. The divorce rate will continue to climb. This will only cause more of taxpayers money to be spent on legal battles (paying the judges etc.)
I for one don't want to pay more in taxes for something that can be avoided.
The role of the SGA is to advocate for students, and while many students are affected by the issue of gay marriage, it is not the role of the SGA to advocate for something that is beyond the sphere of SGA's influence. If the SGA wants to advocate for gay marriage, what's to stop the SGA from advocating for other controversial issues. Regardless of the opinion on either side, as it is a very heated topic, and it is not SGA's place to push for gay marriage or for any other issue, that does not directly affect students.
I don't think that the SGA should get involved with this. I'm not in SGA so my opinion probobly doesn't matter as much as everyone elses.
@most recent anonymous:
Actually, since you aren't in the SGA, your opinion matters the most. We're supposed to be representing the interests of all students and to do that we need input like yours.
Thanks for taking the time to leave a comment here. It means a lot to us and hopefully, you get something out of the site as well.
@ Jen Kent and everyone else
i would have to respectfully disagree, anything that the students care about is something the SGA should lobby on. It'll make press (good and bad) and any press is always good press
I am VERY MUCH in support of this Bill. A big thumbs up to SGA for even getting involed with it- this is very rocky grounds for a lot of people.
I agree with the idea of polling students to find out what the majority of students think.
@ben ring
Think about what you're saying! Just because this bill doesn't directly affect YOU does not mean that this bill does not directly affect ME.
And last time I checked, I was a student too. Last time I checked, I didn't have the same rights as you, and I would like to.
Think about the Walker Avenue policy about married couples sharing a studio apartment. I don't know all the details, but I'm willing to bet that it's cheaper than each student paying their own way for their own room.
Shouldn't gay and lesbian couples on campus who want to get married have the same rights that you do, to rent those apartments?
For that matter, shouldn't gay/lesbian/bisexual couples have the advantage of being able to claim themselves as married on their taxes or the FAFSA?
Maybe not all students realize this, but not everyone is straight and lives at home with mom and dad. Some of us are on our own and the system works against gay and lesbian couples trying to make it on they're own.
We're students too, and this bill affects some of us a lot more than you think. You should probably reconsider your opinion about whether this is a "student issue".
Notice how it's really easy for everyone who already has their rights to want to "stay out of it". Throughout history, colleges have never "stayed out of it". Colleges have always been a vital part of many historical movements.
Just because you don't care whether gays and lesbians get to marry shouldn't mean that those who do shouldn't band together and do something about it.
I am not Jewish, but I agree with the Torah's definition on marriage and marriage laws. I don't know what it is like to be gay, but I know that it crossed my mind after a bunch of bad experiences with the opposite sex. I do not know what it is like to know that one is gay since birth but I was born and raised in American culture and know how hard it is to make heterosexuality work. This said, I think the definition of Marriage as a woman loosing her virginity is paramount to figuring out ones own historical psychology in reaction to culture (even after sex). If two homosexual people are in love and want to be married, fine, but that marriage should not have the same name as the marriage defined in the Old Testament, nor should any marriage for that matter. If the old marriages are improbable in current society than it is the responsibility of society to create probability.
On a humanist level, general marriage sounds great. On a cultural level, it is yet another law that dilutes the significance of sexual intercourse for heterosexuals.
If this were not a cultural effect, then it would be beneficial for all couples to be married.
I think this contributer Josh takes himself way too seriously. Honestly, do you really think it matters what the Student Government Association of UMBC has to say about gay marriage? You should stop wasting your time worrying about random bs that you have no say in. You really need to stop taking yourself so seriously.
@Paula
Not everyone that already "has our own rights" is saying that WE as INDIVIDUALS should stay out of it. Just that the SGA should not get involved in political issues where the student body is nowhere near at an agreement. If a band of students wants to band together (and I'll join the band!) that is fantastic, but I just don't think it is the place of the SGA. YOU know that gay rights are important. I know that gay rights are important. But not every student here does (far from it, I'd guess based on some of the people I know on campus) and it just isn't fair for the SGA to give the state legislature the statement "Hey, this is what UMBC thinks."
So if a group of students wants to band together and fight for gay rights, lets do it! But lets not give the mistaken impression that the student body is at a consensus on this issue.
If the SGA is legitimately concerned with representing the student body, then the optimum way to find out whether or not the majority of students desire to lobby for or against this issue would be to institute an official vote.
If a comment page is the best that we can do, then here is my vote:
The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is already limited, and must be limited for good reason. The notion that people can do or say whatever they want under the pretense of religion or free speech is running rampant these days. Universities around the globe are replete with students that have been taught to stifle their consciences and adopt the idea of “Who am I to force my beliefs on other people?”. Yet that is exactly what many proponents of homosexual marriage are doing. “Tolerance” is merely a misnomer in this situation; there are two opposing views. As a married heterosexual, proponents of homosexual marriage show zero tolerance for my belief that marriage is a sacred institution only to be shared between a man and a woman. Yet heterosexuals are accused of intolerance, and are harshly ridiculed for standing up for what they believe in. Because heterosexuals are the historical majority, their accusers can somehow get away with intolerance, while making themselves look like the victims; and they do it masterfully. If marriage is re-defined to include homosexuals, why not stop there. If we’re really concerned with the pursuit of happiness, we ought not restrict an individual desiring to marry their father, or mother, or brother, or sister, or dog, or cat, or rag doll!
Anonymous wrote “to avoid discrimination against either side the SGA should stay out of it.” No, you will never be able to please everybody, but taking a poll would make it a representative stance. Disagreement is NOT discrimination, so the SGA would not be discriminating against anyone whatever the results of the poll.
Jenkent wrote "this bill is not something that affects our students in a student role". I think that partnered students who do not have the same economic/legal rights as others ARE affected as students. It affects their income (health insurance premiums get taxed unlike their heterosexual counterparts- and guess what . . . there is less money for textbooks), financial aid status (you can not claim a "legal stranger" as a dependant even if you ARE supporting the whole family), and general access to equal rights as a tax paying citizen.
Anonymous wrote “University students have never had any role in the fight for civil rights, and it should stay that way.”. Brilliant. :) Sadly, I bet not everyone will get your sarcasm.
Anonymous wrote, “On a cultural level, it is yet another law that dilutes the significance of sexual intercourse for heterosexuals” WHAT!? This isn’t about sexual intercourse. It is about legal access to the same rights (property, inheritance, etc.) as heterosexuals. If you think marriage is really about procreation, then why aren’t couples required to do so upon marriage? Why aren’t marriages legally invalidated because of infertility?
Anonymous wrote, “As a married heterosexual, proponents of homosexual marriage show zero tolerance for my belief that marriage is a sacred institution only to be shared between a man and a woman.” I support your right to have whatever kind of sacred institution you believe. I am not asking YOUR church to agree to perform my wedding ceremony. I am asking MY government to give me the same rights that you have. He or she then wrote, “If we’re really concerned with the pursuit of happiness, we ought not restrict an individual desiring to marry their father, or mother, or brother, or sister, or dog, or cat, or rag doll”. That is slippery slope illogic. They used those arguments to uphold antimiscegenation laws, should those be brought back too?
- Tara (I choose not to hide behind the name anonymous)
i deleted the last post because i stated what i wanted to state incorrectly. heres round 2
it is important to keep in mind that the question is 'should the sga lobby in reference to the bill.'
not 'am i in favor or against this bill'
keeping this in mind is going to keep this convo. meaningful and not about very strong personal opinions...
at least in my opinion....
@long anonymous post two above this one
That whole argument about liberals being intolerant of conservatives is not only very old, it's bullshit.
Sorry for not being "tolerant" of that fact that you're religion thinks I'm subhuman and don't deserve the same rights as everyone else.
Sorry for being "intolerant" of the idea that just because I don't have a penis I can't marry a woman like the humans who have penises can.
I'll try harder to accept the fact that you think my life is unacceptable.
Cause truthfully, that's what it comes down to.
And honestly, I'm pretty sure that NOT every student at UMBC agreed on raising taxes to make tuition more affordable, but SGA lobbied for that.
paula, you make a really strong argument. i completely agree with you and i'm sorry that rag doll anonymous is as ignorant as he/she is.
i also strongly agree with the very first comment, made by sameera. conduct a poll. take this discussion from this blog to myumbc. ask the students if the sga should lobby in reference to this bill and go from there.
can SOMEBODY from the sga respond to this and say whether they're going to do anything [like a poll] or not??
@carmen:
http://zwybak.blogspot.com/2008/02/cga-in-action-this-past-week.html
@Paula
For the record, I was against the SGA lobbying for the tax increases as well--I feel like there was a lot of misinformation about what the MD state legislature was doing during that special session. I was especially annoyed that the SGA never really mentioned to students that taxes were going to be raised, only that they were supporting funding for higher education. Misleading, if you ask me!
But not everyone that is against the SGA lobbying for this bill equates gays and lesbians with animals and dolls! Why can't a group of UMBC students have an organized effort to lobby for this bill instead of the SGA?
Gay rights are very important to me, and I don't want to minimize that, but as Amir said, the question isn't "am I in favor of this bill" it is "should the SGA lobby for the bill."
Paula,
Initially, I was amazed at your interpretation of my previous comments, and I must admit I attributed most of the blame to myself; I assumed I was unclear. But when you commented, “as Amir said, the question isn't ‘am I in favor of this bill’ it is ‘should the SGA lobby for the bill.’” I realized that you hadn’t even read what this post was all about. So I invite you to scroll up to the top of the page and read the two questions that are asked. Note the very first question: “What do you think about the legislation?”
It is no wonder that you misconstrued almost every single thing that I said in my previous comment, and it pains me to see not only how many presuppositions you’ve made about me and my views, but also to see you resort to ad hominem attacks and name-calling the likes of which belong in grade school. Since you’ve put words in my mouth, and presupposed too many things to name, I feel it necessary to provide some points of clarification:
1.) You not only assumed that I’m religious, but went on to make assumptions about that religion which you assigned to me: such as, it teaches that homosexuals are sub-human.
To maintain the belief that marriage should remain between a man & a woman in no way states that homosexuals are sub-human. It merely states that I have a moral belief that marriage should be exclusively heterosexual.
2.) You’ve assumed that I think that you’re whole life is unacceptable.
Again, my belief is not that your whole life is unacceptable. The issue is the proposed change in legislation, and that is what I cannot accept.
3.) You misconstrued my closing comment to say that I equate homosexuality with incest, bestiality, and pedophilia.
Talk about putting words in someone’s mouth, it is outrageous to infer that I placed homosexuality on the same moral plane as bestiality, incest, and pedophilia. I was simply stating that the pursuit of happiness does not, and should not grant any unhappy group that happens to come along, the right to change established legislation. The progression from incest to bestiality and so on, was just to reiterate the fact that if we redefine an established and historical institution like marriage to cater to one group’s happiness, where do we draw the line? In no way did I equate homosexuality to be the moral equivalent of the aforementioned acts!
"And honestly, I'm pretty sure that NOT every student at UMBC agreed on raising taxes to make tuition more affordable, but SGA lobbied for that"
I think the SGA could do allot more in terms of actually representing the student body. How many students here would you call "active"? I would say 25-30%. The rest are "inactive" 60-75%. To me, the SGA represents the students who are "active"..they go to events, they give feedback, they do lots of stuff. The others don't, so they aren't represented as much.
Which leads to the SGA pushing an agenda and doing lots of different stuff that the student body may or may not approve of. So does the SGA represent the "true" student culture and body at UMBC? Do they represent the people who are active or inactive?
2 examples of stuff i don't think the "inactive" student body would approve of are the 50,000 allocated for imProveIt and the Tax/tuition lobbying
thoughts?
In my last post...
1. I'm not saying that lobbying is wrong or the SGA is doing a piss poor job at representing the student body.
I'm saying they aren't inclusive enough. I think that the SGA should be more transparent as to what decisions they make, why they make these, and what their effects are. This should be marketed to these "inactive" students who don't know whats going on. Shit, most "active" students don't know whats going on...lol
2. I do think the SGA is doing a good job at running the school. I like improve it, I like the Bus trip to Binghamton, i like how they're easy to work with, and offer lots of help.
yeah, thats all for now
Rather than criticize the system, make the effort to change it. Fill out an SGA application, run for a position. There's a lot of them out there. Any one can run for SGA. I can guarantee you that most of the folks in SGA are in it because they have made an investment in their experience, and believe in UMBC and its future. Take the initiative, and get involved, make UMBC yours!
@ anonymous
I don't have the required GPA to run for SGA office. oops :(
Post a Comment